• J24 In view of the foregoing provision, what is evident is that the offence of incest is committed when the evidence establishes that there has been sexual intercourse between two people who are related. With regard to ground one, we accept that in sexual offences, corroboration of the identity of the perpetrator and commission of the offence is cardinal for purposes of securing a conviction. In this case from the evidence on record, we observed that the trial court dealt with the issue of identity of the perpetrator when it considered the fact that the appellant is a well known person to the prosecutrix, whose identity cannot be mistaken. The court went further to consider the fact that she lived in the appellant's house for two years in addition to her being the appellant's niece by reason of being the appellant's elder brother's daughter. Those pieces of evidence considered by the trial court in our view amounted to "something more" or supporting evidence such that there cannot be mistaken identity in this case. We, therefore, find that the CHRISTOPHER LUSHINGA case cited by Counsel is relevant to this case. We turn to the second limb of the requirement of corroboration. We accept that the medical report merely confirmed that the prosecutrix had sexual intercourse as she was found to have an old hymenal tear at 3 o'clock.