The point should be made clear that PW3 is not a virgin and the time she got disvirgined was concealed by her and she could not also reveal who disvirgined her. Exhibit C merely shows that PW3 hymen was not intact and nothing more. Exhibit C did not confirm the facts of ingredient of rape. See OKOH v NIG. ARMY (Supra) at 37 – 38. PW5 and Exhibit C did not state that it was the penis of the accused person that penetrated PW3’s virgina and PW3 never mentioned throughout her evidence the person responsible for her hymen not to being intact. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that the prosecution has not only failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts but their evidence is not credible and compelling. The witness statements are high contradictory which destroys the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. OMOTAYO v STATE (2013) 2 NWLR See (Pt 1338) 235 at 242 – 248 Paras H – B. It is submitted that the prosecution have failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and also failed to lead cogent evidence to disprove the evidence of the defence. Court is urged to discharge and acquit the accused person. The prosecution’s counsel filed a 5-page final written address dated 19/10/15 wherein counsel formulated an issue for determination, thus: “Whether the prosecution has proved his case as charged beyond reasonable doubt against the accused person” 18