6 With regards to the issue of sexual intercourse exhibit “P3” the medicolegal certificate confirms the possibility penile penetration. I believe from exhibit P3 that there was carnal knowledge of prosecutrix. Exhibit “P3” is therefore enough corroboration of the act of sexual intercourse. In most criminal cases and indeed, as in this case, the crucial issue is not ordinarily whether or not the offence was committed. More often than not, the controversy is about who the perpetrator is. As far as the identity of the perpetrator is concern, the law requires that the corroborating evidence must not only confirm that an offence has been committed, but must also point to the accused as the person who committed it(R v. BASKERVILLE (1916) 2 KB 658 at 667). It is necessary therefore,to find out if there is any evidence on record corroborating the evidence of the prosecutrix that the act is that of the accused. It is however trite law that the need for corroboration will only arise if the evidence which should be corroborated appears credible and capable of believe (DPP V. KILBOURNE (1973) AC 729 @ 746). I will therefore evaluate the evidence of the prosecutrix at this point. According to the prosecutrix, the act occurred on the 28 th of January in a year she cannot remember, but PW1 testified that the act occurred on the 10th of February 2011. In her evidence in chief, the prosecutrix asserted that she threw away her torn knickers, skirt, and inner pants the same day of the incident; but maintained several times under cross examination that these items were presented to the police, but the police returned same to