The facts of this case are clear, lucid and uncomplicated. They reveal the sadistic attitude of a man saddled with the duty of tutoring a child/young girl placed in his care in one of our places of "learning". Instead of teaching and imparting knowledge and good morals in the unfortunate young girl, the Appellant decided to be the devil's advocate. The Appellant did not deny the fact that he had sexual intercourse with her. In fact the Appellant admitted disvirgining the prosecutrix when she was in Junior Secondary School. He later, after her Senior Secondary School, lured her into his home, detained her on the pretext that he wanted to marry her. If indeed, he had the intention of marrying her, why give her the pill to prevent her from getting pregnant. The conduct of the Appellant clearly evinced the attitude of a person who wanted to have good time with the prosecutrix and later on dump her. The crux of the matter, however, is that the Appellant had sex with the prosecutrix when she had not attained adulthood or the age of consent. Whatever "consent" the prosecutrix gave, as alleged by the Appellant was incontrovertibly negatived by the evidence placed by the prosecution before the Court. If the Appellant contends that he reasonably believed that the child was of the age of 18 years and above, he had the onus to place before the Court facts which would enable the Court determine whether or not his beliefwas reasonable or unreasonable. Whatever conduct the prosecutrix exhibited which formed the basis of his beliefcannot stand in view of the evidence before the Court. The Appellant, was her teacher but did not bother to investigate whether or not she was of the required age of consent. He was consumed with passion for the