Learned Appellants Counsel has argued that the unsworn evidence of PW6 a child of 5 years of age requires corroboration and that neither the above evidence of PW3 nor that of PW4 corroborates her evidence. I quite agree with the learned Counsel that the unsworn evidence of PW6, a child below the age of 14 years, requires corroboration both as a matter of law as stipulated in Section 209 (1) and (3) of the Evidence Act and by established practice as a matter of prudence. See OBRI VS THE STATE (1997) LPELR 2194 (SC); DAGAYYA VS THE STATE (2006) LPELR 912 (SC). Evidence in corroboration is an independent testimony which affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime in some respects material to the charge in issue but it needs not consist of direct evidence that the accused committed the offence, nor amount to a confirmation of the whole account given by the witness. It is sufficient if it corroborates the evidence in some respects material to the charge. See EZIGBO V. STATE (2012) LPELR 7855 (SC); R. VS BASKETVILLE (1916-17) ALL ER REPRINT 38 18 AT 43; IKO VS STATE (2001) 14 NWLR (PT. 732) 221 AT 241. Indeed corroborative evidence is confirmatory evidence or additional evidence to that already given. It is supplementary evidence that tends to strengthen or confirm the evidence already given which it is to corroborate. It is an additional evidence of a different character on the same point. See Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition page 344 and MUSA VS THE STATE (2013) ALL FWLR (PT. 692)1688 B C. In STATE VS GWANGWAN (2015) LPELR-24837(SC) SC.504/2012 the Supreme Court held that corroboration means or entails the act supporting or strengthening the statement of a witness and it does not mean that the witness corroborating the evidence must use the exact or very like words used by the witness whose evidence is to be corroborated. Additionally, corroborative evidence, it must be emphasized is sufficient even if it is circumstantial in nature so long as it connects or tends to connect the accused to the commission of the offence. See DURUGO VS THE STATE (1992) NWLR (PT. 255 525; OGUNBAYO VS THE STATE (2007) LPELR 2323 (SC).