both standing facing each other. The accused person attempted to give me some money but I refused to accept. I brought the accused and the victim out, by which time people have gathered. They asked the accused whether he had sex with the girl, and he said yes." Pw5 the Medical Doctor in his testimony also said:"When we examined the vagina (sic) of the girl the main covering was found to be incompletely broken in the centre. Our conclusion is that the victim was raped." It is imperative to state that the evidence of Pw1 is sworn on oath. The record shows that the learned trial judge conducted proper investigations on the prosecutrix ( a minor) before allowing her to give evidence on oath after finding her intelligent enough to understand the proceedings and also appreciating the implication of oath taking. It is noteworthy to restate that the prosecutrix, who was raped at the age of nine years, gave evidence at the time she was twelve years of age. Evidence is borne out to that effect on the record and which was unchallenged. In this appeal, the appellant's major grouse challenges the absence of corroboration on the evidence by PW1. In other words, that assuming (without conceding) that penetration was proved, the evidence of PW1 linking him appellant) to the crime has not been corroborated. The law is trite and well settled that Pw1, though a minor needed no corroboration of her evidence which was sworn on oath. See again the case of Ogunbayo v. The State (supra) where it was held that a sworn evidence of a minor requires no corroboration.