whether she consented or not is immaterial, since she is a child as envisage by section 2 of the children and young person law Cap. 102 Laws of sokoto state 1996. On the third ingredient of the offence the evidence was not contradicted by the defendant himself who testified as DW1 where he told the court that he knew Maryam Umar (victim) they live together in the same house as his niece, hence urged the court to hold that the child victim is not the wife of the defendant? Learned prosecuting counsel further submitted that on the issue of penetration it has been proved through Exhibit B medical report which reveals penetration. Counsel referred the court to the case of HABIBU MUSA V. STATE (2013) 8 NCC pg 464 @ 466 decision 1. Learned counsel submitted that the defendant denied making Exhibit A and A1 which was tendered without objection before this court, and while on cross examination the defendant corroborated the contents of Exhibit A and A1 where he stated his name as Wadata Dan-umma he reside at Inname ----- he further stated that he know the victim, they live in the same house which accession is fully contained in Exhibit A and A1, also urged the court to hold that Exhibit A and A1 are true statement of the defendant also that Exhibit A and A1, is clearly corroborated by the evidence of defendant under cross examination. Counsel referred the court to the case of LEGI MUHAMMED V STATE (2017) 15 NCC 101 at 185 RATIO 6 CN UWA JCA AT PAGES 208 – 209 Finally, they submitted that looking at the nature and the totality of evidence adduced before this court by the prosecution as well as relevant authorities referred, the prosecution has proved its case Page 9 of 22