Now let me begin by stating at the onset that in every criminal trial, the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in line with section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011, which provide thus; “If the commission of a crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceeding civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.” See the case of GODWIN IGABELE V STATE (2007) 2 NCC 125. Indeed, as succinctly highlighted in the defence’s final written address, learned defence counsel M.B. Ngada Esq. formulated a sole issue for determination to wit “Whether the prosecution has prove the offence of rape beyond reasonable doubt against the defendant.” Prosecution on the other hand formulated 2 issues for determination and is hereby reproduced as follows; “Whether the prosecution has from the totality of the evidence adduced before this Honourable court proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the defendant.” “Whether the defence can be heard to complain about the admissibility of exhibits already tendered and admitted in evidence before this court without objection.” In arguing the issue, counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the ingredients of rape under section 259 of the penal code law of sokoto state 2019 beyond reasonable doubt ISA V THE STATE (2016) LPELR 4011 (SC). Page 3 of 22