6 (D.P.P V. KILBOURNE (1973) A.C. 729 @ 758). It is also settled law that corroboration need not consist of direct evidence that the accused person committed the offence, nor need it amount to a confirmation of the whole account given by the witness, provided that it corroborates the evidence in some respects material to the charge (R. V. GOLDSTEIN (1914) 11 CAR 27). The evidence of the prosecutrix in sexual offence cases could be corroborated by either direct positive evidence of eye witnesses or by circumstantial evidence (Archbold’s Criminal Pleadings and Practice, 39th Edition paragraph 1141). Apart from PW2 and PW3 who each testified that the accused had sexual intercourse with them at the same time, there is no evidence of any eye witness who said he saw the accused sexually assault them. The accused has also denied the allegations. In the circumstance the Court will resort to circumstantial evidence. I must immediately state that there are two issues to be corroborated here; the act of sexual intercourse and the element of consent or the lack of it. Some of the circumstances that could readily infer the commission of rape, 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 see (OGUNBAYO V. THE STATE (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035).