It must be restated that the evaluation of evidence and assumption of probative value to such evidence are the preserve of the trial Court that had the opportunity of hearing the evidence and the demeanour of the witnesses. The lower Court and indeed this Court interferes only where an appellant shows clearly that the trial Court did not, in the discharge of its primary duty of evaluating the evidence it received, bring to bear the advantage it had of seeing and assessing the witnesses. Having not done that in the instant case, appellant's complaints against the inference of the two Courts on this particular issue accordingly fails. See Mogaji V. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 1, Eseme Eyibo V. Mr. Dan Abia & Ors (2012) LPELR-20607 (SC) and Dakat V. Dashe (1997) 12 NWLR (Pt 531) 46. In what evidence if any, It may now be enquired, did the lower Court find corroboration to the testimony of PW1? The answer to this question starts with the finding of the trial Court in that regard at pages 77-83 of the record inter-alia as follows:. "The evidence of PW1 was corroborated by the testimony of PW2 who has stated that when PW1 told him what happened to her he physically examined her and saw sperm deposited all over her vagina- PW3 also stated that the accused gave a confessional statement which he recorded ...he took the accused to the scene of the crime (where) he recovered a trouser with fresh sperms on it which he took and registered it as an exhibit. The Court continued thus:"The evidence of PW1 was further corroborated by the confessional statement of the accused exhibit A. In exhibit A the accused narrated the same story of calling PW1 a 3 years (sic) old and giving her been cake thereafter had carnal knowledge