legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he or she asserts must prove that those facts exist. And Section 144 (1) of the Evidence Act (supra) also provides that the standard of proof in criminal cases or where a crime is alleged to have been committed is proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled law that, “The burden of proof in all criminal cases is upon the prosecution to prove the Accused guilty of the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt. It is not for the Accused to prove his innocence as that will negate the constitutional provision that the Accused is presumed innocent until proved other wise.” See the Supreme Court of Nigeria case of NJOKWU V. STATE (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1360)417 at 427 held 10. To prove the offence of rape with which the Accused is charged, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt (a) that sexual intercourse has taken place; (b) that it took place without the consent of a woman or a girl; and, (c) that the Accused person was the man who committed the crime. See the case of IKO V. STATE (supra) In the instant case, PW1 and PW3 did not lead any evidence of probative value to establish the offence of rape as seen in their evidence above. PW2 testified and tended to inculpate the Accused. However, her evidence is of doubtful validity and fraught with doubts. To start with the evidence of PW2 (prosecutrix) that the Accused had series of sexual intercourse with her in December, 2014 which resulted in her pregnancy and eventual delivery of a baby on the 20th day of February, 2015 (a period of two months) is unbelievable, unempirical and biologically invalid. It lacks medical veracity. Also, the prosecutrix’s evidence that one night at 1:00am the Accused left his wife who was still awake to have sex with her (prosecutrix) to the knowledge of the wife of the Accused (who did not characteristically as a woman raise any alarm that night) is doubtful and antithetical to the common course of events. The law is trite that doubts in the evidence of the prosecution should be resolved in favour of the Accused. The foregoing doubts are hereby resolved in favour of the Accused. To crown it all, under Section 180 (2) (a) of the Evidence Act, 1994 rape, and other sexual offences against complainants require corroboration. Corroboration is defined under Section 179 of the Evidence Act (supra) as JUDGMENT – THE STATE VS MUSA KEITA 27/7/2016 Page | 9