"209 (3) A person shall not be liable to be convicted for an offence unless the testimony admitted by virtue of Subsection (1) of this Section and given on behalf of the prosecution is corroborated by some other material evidence in support of such testimony implicating the defendant." (Underlining supplied tor emphasis) The contention of learned appellant's counsel is not only that the foregoing provision has made corroboration to PW1's evidence in the matter a necessity. He further argues that PW1's ambivalent evidence on the fact of the penetration of her vagina by appellant's penis is suspect, unreliable and unavailing to the respondent in proof of the most relevant ingredient of rape. To what extent are these postulations correct? The relevant portion of PW1's testimony is at pages 13-15 of the record of appeal. In her evidence in chief PW1 stated as follows:"I know the accused person Musa Natasha. I can't recall the date when this incident happened but I know what happened to me. The accused raped me. On that day, the accused saw me outside so he called me. He asked me to go and buy Kosai (been cake) for him. It was in the morning in his shop at bakin kasuwa (market frontage). Then when I bought the been cake and I brought it to him at his shop so the accused gave me one been cake. I ate the been cake. I know the accused even before the incident as he is our neighbour. Between his house and mine are 3 houses then often I ate the been cake, the accused then removed my clothes and pant. Then he laid me down and laid on top of me. Then he put his penis inside my vagina. I was crying as I felt pains so after he left me and he put something mucus on my vagina I was still crying so I went home and I told my