3 I have carefully looked at Section 127 (1) of the Criminal Code, and it appears to me that the prosecution is required to establish that: (a) There was carnal knowledge of a girl, (b) The act was unlawful, (c) The girl was under the age of eighteen years, and (d) The act was that of the accused person. The law allows the prosecution to establish the above either by direct positive evidence of eye witnesses or by circumstantial evidence. From the evidence on record, there is no evidence of any eye witness who said he saw the accused sexually assault the prosecutrix. The accused has also denied the allegations. The evidence of the prosecutrix is categorical to the fact that the accused sexually assaulted her. However, Section 180 (2) (a) and the proviso to Section 185 (2) of the Evidence Act make it mandatory for the evidence of the prosecutrix to be corroborated. It is good law that in cases of a sexual character it is eminently desirable that the evidence of the complainant be strengthened by other evidence implicating the accused person in some material particular. Any evidence tending to confirm, support and strengthen other evidence sought to be corroborated would be sufficient for this purpose. See the case of D.P.P V. KILBOURNE (1973) A.C. 729 @ 758. Also settled, is that corroboration need not consist of direct evidence that the accused person committed the offence, nor need it amount to a confirmation of the whole account given by the witness, provided that