(ii) Whether the medical evidence has satisfied the statutory provisions for corroboration, and if not are there other material evidence providing corroboration to warrant conviction of the appellant. I have thoroughly examined these issues formulated by learned counsel in their respective briefs of argument. I will consider the issues as formulated by the appellant along with issue (ii) added by the respondent supra. I must also state that at the oral hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant Oloronmuhunle Esq. merely adopted his briefs filed on 15/2/96 and appellant's reply brief filed on 18/4/96. He relied on both briefs and urged this court to allow the appeal set aside the decision of the trial court and quash same. He then urged this court to discharge and acquit the appellant. It is manifest that the respondent filed his respondent's brief on 22/3/96. The respondent's learned counsel Christopher Cromwell (Senior State Counsel Attorney-General' s Chambers, Ministry of Justice, Yola, Adamawa State) who settled the respondent's brief of argument, was absent in court although duly served with hearing notice in respect of the appeal. Accordingly this court proceeded with the hearing of the appeal Ex parte pursuant to the relevant Rules and Orders of this court on the briefs filed by both parties. The first issue raised by the appellant is whether the prosecution adduced sufficient legal evidence to warrant the conviction of the appellant for rape? It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the prosecution falls far short of the standard required to sustain the appellant's conviction. The facts of this appeal, which are not in serious conflict, could be tersely set out thus: The appellant was convicted of nasty indecent assault called rape under the