1- That the accused person had sexual intercourse with the woman/girl in question. 2- That it was done with or without her consent, when she is under 14 years of age. 3- That the girl was not the wife of the accused. 4- That there was penetration. Learned prosecuting counsel referred the court to section 260 of the penal code and EDWIN EZIGBO V STATE (2012) 7 NCC pg 426 at 429 decision 3, counsel submitted that from the evidence adduced before the court it is crystal clear that defendant had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, Maryam Umar PW4 and it was established through her testimony in court counsel referred the court to the case of SEGUN AJIBADE V STATE (2013) 8 NCC pg 221 at 226 decision 6, also that the oral evidence of PW4 was never challenged or controverted neither on the cross examination nor in the defendant written address and unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence are deemed true. Learned counsel referred the court to the cases of OKUPE V I FEMEHI (1974) 3 sc pg 7 @ 103, ALAGBE V ABIMBOLA (1978) 2 SC @ 40. Submitted further that the evidence of PW4 was corroborated by the evidence contained in Exhibit B which is the medical report of the victim which reveals penile vaginal penetration. On the second ingredient of the offence it was established that PW4 was a child of 10 years in the year 2020when the incident happened through her father, this was also corroborated by the evidence as contained in the personal details of the victim in Exhibit B, therefore Page 8 of 22