of the appellant with fresh sperm on them and the medical report, Exhibit C wherein the doctor who examined PW1 stated that bruises were seen around her pelvic area; that examination of the vagina revealed a permeable hymen and "an impression of rape was ascertained. The Court also relied on the appellant's confessional statement, which he attempted to retract at the trial. The statement was admitted without objection. He identified his signature written in Arabic language although he claimed that he did not understand the English language in which it was written. In other words, that it was not his statement. The facts contained therein tally substantially with PW1's account. The retraction of a confessional statement at the trial does not render it inadmissible. The plea of non est factum was not made out. The Court was entitled to rely on the statement along with the other credible evidence before it. See: Ubierho Vs The State (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt.919) 644; Yesufu vs The State (1976) 6 SC 167; Alarape vs The State (2001) 5 NWLR (pt.705) 79. I am of the considered view that the trial Court fully utilized the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses testify and made findings fully supported by the evidence on record. The evidence of these witnesses was not discredited under cross-examination. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to satisfy me that there was any material inconsistency in the evidence led by the prosecution or that the findings of the trial Court, upheld by the lower Court were perverse in any way. The Court below did a thorough job, which cannot be faulted.