cross examined as to its content and counsel urged the court to expunge the Exhibit A and B from its record. Learned defence counsel submitted that a closer look at the Exhibits, will surely revealed that they were not issue by any government pathologist serving in either Federal Gov’t or State Gov’t, to warrant their reception by this Hon. Court, they were issue by Nana Khadija Centre which is none governmental organization managed partnership for justice as on general from the stamp affixed at the button of each of the report (Exhibits A and B) operating within specialist hospital, therefore Nana Khadija is not owned by either the State Government or Federal Government as envisage by section 55(1) of the Evidence Act 2011. Learned counsel further submitted that the defendant while giving evidence as DW1 denied the charge as frame against him and denied having any such affairs with any of the victims (PW4 and PW5) his oral evidence is consistent with his extra judicial statement learned defence counsel further stated that Ibrahim Adamu who testified as DW2 informed the court what he personally saw and did both at Dadin Kowa Police Station and State Police Command, and that his evidence was never contradicted by the prosecution and no features in his evidence that makes it unreliable. Finally, urged the court to enter an order of the discharged and acquittal in favour of the defendant. In her response the learned DPP submitted that PW4 and PW5 are minors under the age of 14 years, by the provision of section 209(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 a child is not to give sworn evidence, but if the court is satisfied that he is possessed of sufficient intelligence to testify Page 7 of 23