(c) that the accused participated in the unlawful sexual intercourse. These ingredients may be established by either direct or circumstantial evidence or upon the confession of the accused person himself (AHMED v. THE NIGERIAN ARMY (2011)1 NWLR 89). In the instant case, there was no eye witness account of the alleged rape, thus eliminating all the prospects of any direct evidence in support of the indictment. The prosecution therefore relied heavily on circumstantial evidence in prove of the offence. Although I agree that circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence, in that it is evidence of surrounding circumstances which by undersigned coincidence is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics, I also agree that circumstantial evidence must be narrowly examined so that a possibility of fabrication to cast suspicions on an innocent person is ruled out. To be sufficient to support a conviction in a criminal trial, circumstantial evidence must be complete and unequivocal. It must be compelling and must lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused and no one else is the culprit. The facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incompatible of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt particularly as all doubts must be resolved in favour of the accused. I must state at this point that the prosecutrix is sick of the voice and ear and cannot speak freely – a kind of dumb she is. She looked mentally and 3