Rape

...to sustain the concurrent conviction of the appellant by the two Courts below under Section 282 of the Penal Code Law for rape, the prosecution must prove by credible evidence and beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual intercourse the appellant himself admitted he had with PW5, a woman not his wife, was in any of the following circumstances:-
(a) against her will;
(b) without her consent;
(c) with her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her in fear of death or of hurt;
(d) with her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married;
(e) with or without her consent, when she is under fourteen years of age or of unsound mind.

MAMUDA v. STATE LGC(11/1/2019) J

The essential and most important ingredient of the offence of rape is penetration and unless penetration is proved, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. See Edet Okon vs. The State (2001) 7 SCNJ 391.
Penetration however slight sufficient and it is not necessary to prove any injury or the rupture of the hymen to constitute the crime of rape. See also Okoyomon VS. The State (1972) 1 NWLR 292, JOS N. A Police VS. Allah NA GANI(1968) NMCR 8; Igbine VS. The State (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 519) 101.

With regard to the offence of rape, the Courts have always looked for some independent evidence to show that the account of the prosecutrix is true i.e. that the offence was committed and that it was committed by the accused person. See: Posu Vs The State (supra). This is particularly pertinent in this case where the prosecutrix was a child of tender age. Notwithstanding the fact that the Court had satisfied itself that she understood the duty of speaking the truth as required by Section 209 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, by virtue of Section 209 (3) of the Act, her evidence required corroboration. Depending on the facts of the case, where the accused person denies the charge, some of the corroborative evidence may include but not limited to:
(a) Medical evidence showing injury to the private part or other parts of the prosecutrix's body which may have been occasioned in a struggle; or
(b) Semen stains on her clothes or the clothes of the accused or on the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed.
See: Posu vs The State (supra); Afor Lucky vs The State (2016) LPELR – 40541 (SC); Isa Vs Kano State (supra).