In addition to the foregoing, Section 256 of the ACJL of Sokoto State 2019 provides as follows:“A certificate signed by any of the officers named in Section 55 of the Evidence Act, shall be admissible in evidence in accordance with the provisions of that Act.” In view of all the foregoing, it is the humble view of this court that the medical report having been properly tendered and admitted in evidence cannot be tagged as documentary hearsay. It is also trite law that evidence of an Investigating Police Officer (IPO) of what he personally saw, did or heard in the course of investigation, is not hearsay and is admissible in evidence. - Ugwumba V. State (1993) 5 NWLR pt. 296 p. 660. - Oladejo V. State (1994) 6 NWLR pt. 348 p. 101. - FRN V. Saraki (2017) LPELR 43392. Although the medical report says there is no genital laceration or bruises, the law is trite that in rape cases it is not necessary to prove any injury or rupture of the hymen to constitute the offence of rape if there is penetration. - Rabiu V. State (2005) 7 NWLR pt. 925 p. 491 ratio 5. - Iko V. State (2001) 14 NWLR pt. 732 p. 221. - Okoyoman V. State (1972) 1 NMLR 292. - Igbine V. State (1997) 9 NWLR pt. 519 p. 101. Page 15 of 19