Submitted more so that the entire evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses in this case it was not made clear beyond reasonable doubt that the incident of rape ever occurred, that PW1 and PW2 who testified against the defendant, did not give any evidence from which the court might inter the actual commission of the crime of rape PW3 simply recounted the information told to him by the prosecution which was not an event that he witnessed personally. Learned counsel submitted that this in itself renders the evidence of PW1 useless to ground a conviction for rape since it is wholly based on hearsay. EMMANUEL V STATE (2017) LPELR 43550 (CA), the Court of Appeal. Counsel further submitted that concerning the evidence of PW4, it was established that her evidence is grossly and materially inconsistent with all other evidence connected to her in terms of the identify of the actual offender, while in one breath under examination in chief, PW4 stated that the defendant raped her, in her extra-judicial statement in proof of evidence before this court, she does not identify the Wadata that allegedly rape her to be Wadata Dan Umma the defendant, again from medical report exhibit B tendered through PW5 and relied upon by the prosecution, it is recorded that the prosecutrix confirmed the rapist to be one Wadata Sahabi and not Wadata Dan Umma. As such there is clear uncertainty as to which Wadata raped PW4, it was just Wadata who could be anyone out there walking freely while an innocent namesake is being prosecuted. Learned counsel further submitted that it was Wadata Danjumma whose statement the prosecution recoded and now seeks to impose on the defendant who has retracted from it? Or was it Wadata Sahabi who PW4 confirmed in Exhibit B her rapist? Or was it Wadata Dan Umma, the defendant who has categorically Page 4 of 22