on the part of penetration or whether defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim, the unambiguous evidence of PW4 and PW5 ----reproduced are in unison that the defendant had both sexual, oral and homo sexual intercourse with PW4 and PW5, there is no contradiction between the evidence of PW4 and PW5 and the contents of Exhibits A and B on the fact of penetration as exhibits A and B state that there was visible vagina and anal penetration sufficient to prove sexual intercourse the court will deem sexual intercourse to have taken place once there is partial or any slightest penetration of penis in the vagina. Thus an addition to what was contained in the oral statement of the PW4 and PW5 does not materially affect the evidence of PW4 and PW5 since all what they said is personal experience. By the stated evidence of PW4 and PW5, corroborated the Exhibits A and B, that the defendant had sexual intercourse with PW4 and PW5, by inserting his penis in their vagina and also their mouth and anus. The said sexual intercourse was without the consent of the victims, it is a trite law that any person below the age of 14 years is a child and by law is incapable of giving consent, there consent is therefore immaterial in rape cases PW4 and PW5 were threatened and actually forced by the defendant who lured them into his sitting room it is the stating obvious that the victims (PW4 and PW5) are not the wives of the defendant, it is also obvious that the defendant has the mens rea to have sexual intercourse with the victims what could have being the intention of a man who lures and tricks girls of 9 and 10 years of age to his living room by giving them signal only to follow them up to satisfy his lust? Not only was the mens rea present but it co-existed with the actic reus, the actual act of sexual intercourse with the 2 victims. Page 18 of 23