corroborate the evidence of Pw1 and link the appellant to the offence for which he was charged because the two exhibits give credence to the evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 that the appellant committed the offence of rape. The two exhibits effectively and effectually connectthe appellant with the offence of rape for which he was charged and convicted." I cannot agree more with the findings of their learned Lordships supra but also endorse their view held and resolve the 1stissue against the appellant. The 2nd issue relates to the question and answer session put by the Court to Pw1. In other words, it is alleged on behalf of the appellant that the view held by the Lower Court at page 143 of the record is contrary to its subsequent finding which the counsel submits did work a miscarriage of justice against his client and therefore should void the conviction and sentence imposed. At page 143 of the record, the Lower Court held thus and said:-"On the other hand, it was wrong for the learned trial judge to have interjected after the cross examination without allowing the defence to further cross examine the witness on the point." Closely following also and in another tone, their Lordships proceeded and concluded