of her the evidence of PW1 was further corroborated by exhibit B and C.... Exhibit B and C clearly stated that PW1 was raped." The lower Courts affirmation of the foregoing trial Courts finding inter-alia at page 181 of the record reads: "The learned trial judge was right when she held that exhibits A, B and C are corroborative evidence of the testimony of PW1 on the issue of penetration....... The evidence of the appellant that he gave N6,000 to the police so that they could release him is corroborative evidence of PW1 that he, indeed, committed the offence of rape against PW1 and I so hold " Now, let me restate what a corroborative evidence is. It is evidence independent of that which it strengthens and discloses not only the commission of an offence but equally links or tends to link the accused with the commission of the offence. It is, put differently, evidence which confirms in some material particular not only that the crime has been committed but, addedly, that it is the accused who committed it. Corroborative evidence may be direct or circumstantial. In whatever form it comes, the Court must ensure that the corroborating evidence is not only independent of the main evidence it seeks to corroborate but also supports the main evidence by rendering the story of the latter implicating the accused more probable in some material particular. See Omisade & Ors v. The Queen (1964) 1 ALL NLR 233 at 253, Okabichi v. State (1975) 3 SC, Mbele v. State (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt 145) 484, and The State v. James Gwongwan (2015) LPELR- 24837 (SC).