5
evidence which, could include amongst others, (a) the denials of the accused, (b) the last
opportunity the accused had to commit the offence, (c) medical evidence of the
examination of the prosecutrix confirming the allegation of recent forcible coitus and (d)
the existence of recent semen in the vagina of the prosecutrix directly traced or traceable
to the accused. In POSU v. THE STATE (Supra) the Court held that the nature of
corroboration must depend on the particular circumstances of each case and that where
an accused person has denied the allegation of rape, the evidence of corroboration that
the Court must look for, is for instance (a) medical evidence showing injury to the
private part or to other parts of her body which may have been occasioned in a struggle,
and (b) semen stains on her clothes or the clothes of the accused person on the place
where the offence is alleged to have been committed.
As far as this offence is concerned it is my view that there are three issues to be
corroborated here; the act of sexual intercourse, the element of consent or the lack of it,
and the identity of the perpetrator.
With regards to the issue of sexual intercourse exhibit “B” the scan confirms that the
prosecutrix had sexual intercourse at least some fifteen (15) weeks before. Although
modern science has made it possible for a woman to be pregnant without necessary
subjecting herself to any direct sexual intercourse (e.g. artificial insemination cases); the
peculiar circumstances of this case does not infer any other possibility than through
sexual intercourse. There is unchallenged independent evidence in exhibit “B” showing
that there was carnal knowledge of prosecutrix. Not having seen any piece of evidence
on record in rebuttal and since there is nothing that leads me to hold the contrary; I
therefore find as a fact that there was carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix. Exhibit “B”
to my mind is therefore enough corroboration of the act of sexual intercourse.
In R v. BASKERVILLE (1916) 2 KB 658 at 667, the Court emphasized that the
corroborating evidence must be an independent testimony, direct or circumstantial,
which confirms in some material particular, not only that an offence has been