And there was evidence from PW2 who initially examined the prosecutrix and said to have found some slippery substance in her. This she believed to be sperms. It was to her that the prosecutrix had complained of the alleged sexual intercourse. She confronted the accused immediately and then called in the police. The prosecutrix was medically examined three days later and although the hymen was still intact and no injuries were found; there was however evidence of genital fondling. From the peculiar circumstances of this case, and although PW2 is not a medical officer, I have considered her age and the fact that she has mothered several children, and it now seems to me that she was right to say that slippery substance which she found in the prosecutrix was sperms. Now, the defence has mooted that the vagina injury on the prosecutrix could have been sustained when her mother examined her. It is unthinkable, that the mother of the prosecutrix could have fondled with the genital of her own daughter to that extent only to pin down the accused. There was no evidence of any grudge between them, so that there was nothing PW2 stood to gain from it. I am therefore, not persuaded the least by this piece of submission. I reject it. Rather, the accused had admitted in his voluntary statement–exhibit “B” that he placed his penis into the vagina of the prosecutrix. When I relate this piece of evidence with the testimony of PW2 and the medical findings in exhibit “A”, I immediately reach the conclusion that there is sufficient corroboration of sexual intercourse. And I now hold as a fact that the prosecutrix was sexually assaulted. 5