On the 2nd ingredient it was submitted that PW1 the victim, is a woman under the age of 14 years, falling within Section 282 (1)(e) of the Penal Code. On the 3rd ingredient, it was submitted that there is nothing to suggest that the victim is the wife of the Appellant. On the 4th ingredient, learned Counsel argued that the slightest penetration of the penis into the vagina completes the offence as decided in MUSA VS THE STATE 9 and POSU VS THE STATE (2011) 2 NWLR (PT. 1234) 393. Again he referred us to the evidence of the victim that the Appellant inserted his penis in her vagina as well as the Appellant???s confessional statement, which he argued, proved penetration and completes the offence. Responding to the Appellant???s submission on Exhibit A, learned Respondent???s Counsel submitted that the non signing of Exhibit A does not render it inadmissible or fatal to the prosecution???s case, in that Exhibit A1 from which Exhibit A was translated into English language, was as required by practice, to ensure correctness and accuracy, recorded in Hausa language the language of the Appellant, in which it was made and thumb printed by the Appellant, counter-signed by the PW4, and endorsed by a superior Police Officer before whom it was read. The case of OLANIPEKUN VS THE STATE (2016) 13 NWLR (PT. 1528) 118 B ??? D was referred to. The translation of the statement he argued, is only for the Court???s consumption and PW4 who recorded it being its maker having testified and produced the statement before the Court, the statement is admissible. He 10 pointed out that since Exhibit A could even be translated by the Court official translators, the absence of the Appellant???s signature on Exhibit A does not render it inadmissible, but assuming without conceding that it is inadmissible in evidence, it is too late for the Appellant who raised no objection at