accepted and settled that penetration, with or without emission, is sufficient even where the hymen is not ruptured. The slightest penetration has served as sufficient to constitute the act of sexual intercourse. Again see Iko V. State, Ogunbayo V. State and State V. Ojo all under reference (supra) also Jegede V. State (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt.733) 264. At page 139 of the record of appeal, their Lordships at the Court below held and said:"Under cross-examination, the appellant gave a graphic and lucid account of his journey and of his co-travellers to the hospital. It beats one's imagination how a person not in his proper senses would give such a clear, lucid and detailed account of such an event. It is no wonder; the learned trial judge did not believe him. I do not believe him either. His account during the examination - in chief is nothing other than an after - thought. I hold that the charge of rape was proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant." The appellants counsel in his submission concedes that in order to prove the offence of rape, penetration is an essential element and which must be linked to the accused person; that the totality of the evidence by PW1 and Pw5 on the insertion of penis into vagina is not conclusive proof of penetration. Also that the contents of exhibit 'A' (the medical report) issued by Pw5 as well as the evidence of Pw1 could have pointed to rape, but that they all fell short of linking the appellant to the rape of Pw1.