evidence that tends to strengthen or confirm the evidence already given which it is to corroborate. It is an additional evidence of a different character on the same point. See Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition page 344 and MUSA VS THE STATE (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 1688) B ??? C. In STATE VS GWANGWAN (2015) LPELR 504/2012 (SC). ???Of necessity, evidence in corroboration is an independent testimony which affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime in some respects material to the charge in issue but it needs not consist of direct evidence that the accused committed the offence, nor amount to a confirmation of the whole account given by the witness. It is sufficient if it corroborates the evidence in some respects material to the charge. See EZIGBO V. STATE (2012) LPELR ??? 7855 (SC); R. VS BASKETVILLE (1916-17) ALL ER REPRINT 38 AT 43; IKO VS STATE (2001) 14 NWLR (PT. 732) 221 AT 241. It must be pointed out that the corroboration required in rape needs not be direct evidence that the accused committed the offence. It is sufficient if it corroborates in material respect the evidence of the prosecutrix. It is any evidence 16 which tends to show that the story of the prosecutrix (victim) is true that the accused committed the crime. See EZIGBO VS THE STATE (Supra). The corroborative evidence, it must also be emphasized is sufficient even if it is circumstantial in nature so long as it connects or tends to connect the accused to the commission of the offence. See DURUGO VS THE STATE (1992) NWLR (PT. 255 525; OGUNBAYO VS THE STATE (2007) LPELR ??? 2323 (SC). Cognizance of this requirement of the law, the learned trial Judge at page 53 of the record held: ???As earlier in this judgment that evidence in corroboration is the evidence of PW4 the investigation Police Officer who recorded the evidence of PW4 (sic) (it should be PW1), together with Exhibits A and A1 provides (sic) evidence in corroboration???. ???The learned Appellant???s Counsel has vehemently attacked this finding of the lower Court on the ground that Exhibit A which was unsigned by the Appellant was wrongly admitted and being worthless cannot corroborate the evidence of PW1.