alone cannot serve as the required corroboration under S.182(3) of the Evidence Act. That medical report must go further and state that it was infact the appellant that raped the victim. R. v. Knight (1966) 1 All E.R p.647; Francis Okpanefe v. State (1969) 1 All NLR 420; (1969) Vol. 6 NSCC p.382. Having considered the evidence before the trial court coupled with the submission of both counsel in their respective briefs I realised that the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW3) was damning against the appellant. Going by her evidence it was the appellant who had that nasty indecent assault on her. The evidence of her senior brother (PW2) a child under 14 years of age cannot possibly corroborate her own testimony. Both made unsworn testimony. Unsworn evidence of a child cannot corroborate another unsworn testimony of another child, The fact that the appellant unsuccessfully put up a defence of alibi cannot in law serve as a corroborative evidence even though it may strengthen the prosecution evidence. The medical evidence though heavily attacked by the defence shows somehow that there was an act of rape but nothing in the evidence linked or tried to link the appellant with the commission of that offence called rape. That is where, with due respect, the learned trial Judge went wrong in convicting the appellant on the ground that the required corroborative evidence was available. Corroborative evidence must be evidence which confirms in some material particular not only that the crime has been committed but also that it was the appellant who committed it. My Lords, in the appeal before us there was no sufficient corroboration. Agreed that the evidence (unsworn) of the victim and her brother directly implicated the appellant. ,These pieces of evidence if believed and corroborated are sufficient to justify the conviction of the appellant. It was clearly believed by the trial court.