4 it corroborates the evidence in some respects material to the charge. See the case of R. V. GOLDSTEIN (1914) 11 CAR 27. In POSU V. THE STATE (2011) LPELR-SC, 134/2010 the Court held that the nature of corroboration must depend on the particular circumstances of each case and that in sexual offence cases, where the accused has denied the allegation, the evidence of corroboration that the Court must look for, is for instance (a) medical evidence showing injury to the private part or to other parts of her body and (b) semen stains on her clothes or the clothes of the accused person on the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed. Although PW3 the mother of the victim testified how she examined the prosecutrix and found that she had been sexually assaulted, there is no medical evidence in support of this fact. The issue of corroboration is central to a Section 127 offence. The medical report of the prosecutrix to support the allegation of sexual assault was rejected by this Court. I have warned myself of the severe punishment of fourteen (14) years associated with this offence and, it immediately seems to me that oral evidence as to the medical condition of the prosecutrix does not suffice. The available evidence on record therefore falls short of the mandatory requirements of Sections 180 (2) (a) and 185 (2) of the Evidence Act. The issue of carnal knowledge has in my view not been established with the certainty required by law. In view of this finding, I will not belabor myself with trying to address the other issues. Doing