connecting or tending to connect him with the crime. In other words, it must be evidence which implicates him, that is, which confirms in some material particular not only the evidence that the crime has been committed but also that the prisoner committed it. The test applicable to determine the nature and extent of the corroboration is thus the same whether the case falls within the rule of practice at common law or within that class of offence for which corroboration is required by statute" It therefore follows, in my view, to ask what is the purpose of corroborative evidence? In D. P. P. v. Hester (1973) AC 296 at 315, Lord Morris said:- "The purpose of corroboration is not to give validity or credence to evidence which is deficient or suspect or incredible but only to confirm and support that which as evidence is sufficient and satisfactory and credible: and corroborative evidence will only fill its role if it itself is completely credible evidence" The above two quotations put together would appear to mean that while corroborative evidence must be independent and capable of implicating the accused in relation to the offence charged, it must be credible and must go to confirm and support that evidence which is sufficient, satisfactory and credible whether the case is one in which it is required by statute or by rule of practice." I am satisfied that with the evidence of PW4 who made Exhibit P5 in respect of PW1's evidence to the effect that it was the appellant, who sexually assaulted her, that is, raped her on 20th February, 2015; the first ingredient of the offence of rape, that is the fact that there was sexual intercourse between the PW1 and the appellant was established by the prosecution. I am satisfied that with the evidence of PW4 who made Exhibit P5 in respect of PW1's evidence to the effect that it was the appellant, who sexually assaulted her, that is, raped her on 20th February, 2015; the first ingredient of the offence of rape, that is the fact that