consent is obtained by force or by means of threat or intimidation of any kind or by fear or harm, or by means of false and Fraudulent representation as to the nature of the act or in the case of a married woman by personating her husband." In summary therefore, rape can be interpreted as an unlawful carnal knowledge or non-consensual sex; that is, penetration without consent. The law is settled and well grounded that the prosecution has the burden and duty to prove the accused person guilty of the following ingredients in order to sustain the conviction of the offence of rape: (a) that the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix; (b) that the act of sexual intercourse was done without her consent or that the consent was obtained by fraud, force, threat, intimidation, deceit or impersonation; (c) that the prosecutrix was not the wife of the accused; (d) that the accused had the mensrea, the intention to have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent or that the accused acted recklessly not caring whether the prosecutrix consented or not. (e) that there was penetration. See Ogunbayo V. State (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt 1035) 157; Upahar v. State (2003) 6 NWLR (pt 816) 230; State V. Ojo (1980) 2 NCR 391; Okoyomon V. State (1973) 1 SC 21; State V. Anolue (1983) 1 NCR 71 and Iko V. State (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt.732) 221. In proof of rape therefore, the most essential ingredient of the offence is penetration, the extent no matter how slight will serve sufficient proof. It is well