Similarly, on the 2nd and 3rd ingredients of the offence, which are the absence of consent of the other person or that the other 6 person was compelled by the accused person to join him in the commission of the grossly indecent act, it was submitted that the learned trial Judge also relied solely on the unsworn and uncorroborated evidence of PW6 that the Appellant threatened to beat her if she said he (the Appellant) was the one who put his hand in her private part. The corroboration required to sustain the Appellants conviction for the offence, he submitted, must be direct, strong, cogent and unequivocal which implicates the Appellant in the commission of the offence, citing the case of SAMBO VS THE STATE (1993) 7 SCNJ (P. 1) 128 and that the learned trial Judge failed to make any finding as required by law as to whether the evidence of PW3 corroborated that of PW6, citing in support the case of SANNI VS THE STATE (1993) 4 NWLR (PT. 285) 99. He submitted that where corroboration is required by law as in the instant appeal but none was provided, the accused should be acquitted, citing in support the cases of MBELE VS THE STATE (1990) 4 NWLR (PT. 145) 484; IKO VS THE STATE (2001) ALL FWLR (PT. 68) 1161 among others. On what amounts to the required corroboration and its 7 nature, the cases of MUSA VS THE STATE (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 692) 1688, 1708 PARAS B C; ADONIKE VS THE STATE (2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 772) 1631, 1659 1660 G- A and SAMBO VS THE STATE (1993) 7 SCNJ (PT. 1) 128 were cited.