The defence counsel also contended that Exhibit ‘B’ which is the medical report, is inadmissible because it was not tendered through the maker as PW3 through whom it was tendered is a police officer. - Monday V. FRN (2020) LPELR 51478. - John V. State (2017) LPELR 48039. He finally submitted that failure of the prosecution to call the victim to give evidence, amounts to withholding of evidence detrimental to the prosecution and urge the court to so hold. - Commissioner of Police V. Ude (2011) 12 NWLR pt. 1260 p. 189. - Section 167(d) Evidence Act. He concluded by saying that in view of the prosecution’s failure to prove all the elements of the offence with which the defendant is charged, the case ought to be dismissed and urge the court to discharge and acquit the defendant. In her response, the prosecuting counsel submitted that by Exhibits A, A1, C and C1 as well as Exhibit ‘B’, the prosecution has proved the fact? The defendant did in fact had sexual intercourse with a woman below the aged 18 years and urge the court to so hold. - Modupe V. State (1998) ALL NLR pt. 371 P1. - Moh’d V. State (2007) 2 NCC 575. She further submitted that by the evidence of PW2, and Exhibits A, A1, C and C1, it has become very clear that the victim of the crime Page 6 of 19