On the 2nd ingredient, it is the view of the prosecuting that it is clear by the evidence of pw3 and pw4 her mother, that Nan Firdausi Bello was 7 years old when the offence was committed and therefore her consent was immaterial. On the 3rd ingredient of the offence it is the submission of the prosecuting counsel that by the evidence of pw3, the prosecutrix herself, it is clear that she was not the wife of the accused person. On the 4th ingredient of the offence i.e that there was penetration, It is the submission of the learned prosecuting counsel that this ingredient of the offence is proved through exhibit B, the medical report in respect of Nana Firdausi Bello which according to the learned counsel reveals the absence of hymen from the virgina of the victim. The learned counsel further contended that penetration however slight can sustain a conviction of rape. It is the contention of the defence counsel in her written submissions before this court that the prosecution did not lead credible evidence to prove the guilt of the defendant. On the evidence of pw3, the prosecutrix in this case where she gave an unsworn testimony before this court considering her age because she was just 9 years old. According to the learned counsel when a 17