and it is trite that where a confessional statement is retracted, it is the duty of the court to among other things look for outside evidence which corroborates the statement STEPHEN HARUNA V THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FEDERATION (2012) LPELR 7821 (SC). Counsel went further to submitted that Exhibit B tendered as proof of the crime, cannot be imputed probative value by this court in that it discloses the culprit to be one Wadata Sahabi and not the defendant before the court and that even though there is medical evidence on record to show penetration of PW4, there is no irresistible, logical and unequivocal evidence before this court that the offence was committed by the defendant in this matter. Finally defence counsel urged the court to discharged and acquitted the defendant. Meanwhile, the learned prosecuting counsel Mr. M.G. Gidan Madi Esq, in prosecution final written address, equally submitted that it is trite law that the guilty of the accused person can be proved in following ways; A- Confessional statement. B- By evidence of an eye witness of a crime. C- By circumstancial evidence as in the case of ADENIYI ADEKOYE V THE STATE (2012) LPELR 7815 (SC) and that to discharge the burden placed on the prosecution by section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 as amended, the prosecution must proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by proving the following; Page 7 of 22