The rationale behind this duty upon the prosecution, is derivable from the Constitutional provision of presumption of innocence in favour of a Defendant guaranteed by the provisions of Section 36 (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended and the provisions of Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011 which provides that whoever assert the existence of a particular fact, has a duty to prove it. - Ajibade V. State (2013) 8 NCC 221. - Smart V. State (2016) LPELR 40827. - Akinlola V. State (2015) LPELR. To prove its case, the prosecution called two (2) witnesses and tendered four (4) Exhibits marked as Exhibits ‘A’, ‘A1, ‘B’ and ‘B1’ respectively. Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘A1 are the Hausa and English translated versions of the 1st Defendants statement. Exhibits ‘B’ and ‘B1’ are the Hausa and English translated versions of the 2nd Defendant’s statement. The case of the prosecution before this court, is as presented by the two (2) prosecution witnesses and the four (4) Exhibits tendered and admitted without objection. From the two (2) counts charges with which the Defendants were arraigned before this court, the Defendants were alleged to have conspired among themselves and lured one Ibrahim Dahiru a 9 years old boy into a house at Makera Asada Area, Sokoto North Local Government Area of Sokoto State on the 28th of September, 2017 and had unlawful carnal knowledge of him against the order of nature which the prosecution said constituted the offences of Criminal Page 6 of 19