Penal Code. He was found guilty of raping a seven year old girl. The prosecutrix as PW3 gave unsworn evidence of the incident. Her father also testified as PW 1 while the mother of the victim gave evidence in court as PW4. The senior brother of the victim, Ubasing Udo Essien, also testified as PW2. Though the evidence of both victim and PW2 directly implicated the appellant they are both children of tender age. The evidence of a medical doctor in a private hospital and that of a doctor in the government hospital were all available to the trial court. The defence of the appellant was that of alibi and that there was no proper corroborative evidence to support the unsworn testimony of the two children. The appellant gave evidence in his own defence and called two other witnesses, including a laboratory technologist with the Government Specialist Hospital (DW1). Learned counsel then contended that even if the evidence of PWs 2, 3, and 5 put together are considered that without more does not prove the alleged offence of rape beyond reasonable doubt. There must be an independent evidence to sustain the evidence of the prosecutrix who is a child. The un-sworn evidence of another child cannot corroborate that of another child. R. v. Omisade (1964) NMLR 67/68 and Odofin Bello v. State (1967) NMLR p1. He emphasized the fact that the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 needed corroboration under Section 183(3) of the Evidence Act. That corroborative evidence must go further and implicate the appellant, either directly or circumstantially. Learned counsel then referred to the evidence of PW5 the doctor from Specialist Hospital Yola. And described same as either non-existent or useless. The said evidence was discredited by the worthless laboratory report. He then submitted that such evidence cannot qualify as corroborative evidence required under