On the 3rd issue, learned appellants counsel submits that the two lower Courts are wrong to have relied on exhibit A in situating the appellant at the scene of the rape. The appellant, it is argued, has maintained that he neither reads nor write in English language, the language in which exhibit A is recorded. Evidence has not been led, it is further argued, to show that exhibit A was translated and read to the appellant in Hausa language that he understands. The appellant, it is argued, in his evidence in chief did raise the defence timeously. The non consideration of the plea constitutes a breach of his right under Section 30(6) of the 1999 Constitution. Referring the Court to Garba v State (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt 627) 427 at 439, Adisa v. State (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt 168) 490 at 508 and Onyegbu v State (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt 391) 510, learned appellant's counsel urges that the wrong concurrent findings of the two Courts on appellant's alibi be set-aside on resolving the issue in appellant's favour. On the 3rd issue, learned respondents counsel submits that appellant's defence of alibi was not investigated because of the insufficient facts he gave the prosecution. The facts which constitute the plea, it is contended, must be given to the prosecution to entitle full investigation into the plea. Appellant's plea of non est factum, learned respondent's counsel contends, does not render exhibit A inadmissible. It touches on the weight to be attached to it an issue the trial Court rightly determined at the end of trial. The appellant, argues learned respondent's counsel, must fail in his purported plea of alibi raised in the course of his evidence at trial. Relying to Ikemson v. State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt 110) 455 and Adio v. State