(a) sexual intercourse has taken place, (b) that the victim was a child, and (c) that the accused person was the man who committed the offence. The learned trial judge, found that the pieces of evidence proffered by the prosecutrix PW1 and the medical officer PW4 who examined the PW1 after the sexual assault on the latter, were uncontradicted. And after reviewing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, his Lordship found as follows at page 77 of the record of appeal: Following from the above, it is my view that the entire evidence of the prosecution which was in no way challenged or contradicted by the defence, establishes on unequivocal terms the fact of rape of the victim in this charge, Ezinne Ukpai. The evidence of the victim (PW1) and the medical doctor (PW4) together with the medical report, Exhibit P5 established the fact of sexual intercourse. It is trite from judicial decision that the term carnal knowledge means sexual intercourse which is complete upon penetration. See the case of Ezigbo v. State (supra) and Adonike v. State (2015) 7 NWLR (pt. 1458) 237. It was part of the evidence of PW1 that accused dragged her into his room and asked her to undress. When she refused, he threatened her with a machete, beat her three times on the back with the machete, tore her cloths and pant and pushed her down. He brought out his penis and inserted into her vagina and had sex with her with blood coming out of her vagina three times that night while tying her mouth and hands. The evidence of PW1 of accused penetrating her vagina with his penis was corroborated by PW4 (the medical doctor) and Exhibit P5 (the medical report).