6 committed, but that the accused person has committed it. It now behooves me to find out if there is any evidence on record corroborating the evidence of the prosecutrix that the act is that of the accused. Whilst there is evidence that the prosecutrix always assisted the accused person’s wife in her domestic chores and in nursing their new born baby, there is also unchallenged evidence that the accused always went for tapping early in the mornings and always returned late when his wife was already in bed. In view of the outright and consistent denial of the offence by the accused person, it seems to me that the paternity test ordered by this court on 18th of March 2010, per M.B Jonson Richards J (as he then was) on the baby of the prosecutrix would have authoritatively resolved this issue. In addition to the above, the prosecutrix appears to me to be an unreliable character; she was pregnant at the age of 13 but yet concealed same for 15 good weeks; she would later attempt an abortion of the pregnancy by self help measures and by resorting to very local and crude means. Furthermore, the unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence of DW2; that the prosecutrix had earlier identified one Amadou, then Buba and later the accused as the author of her pregnacy, suggest to me that she is a mischievous lad; with the risk of deliberate inaccuracy, or unintentional inaccuracy in her entire evidence. It is for these reasons that I do not believe her evidence one bit. It is 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). There is no need, therefore, to seek for corroboration as the evidence of the prosecutrix appears unreliable to me. Even at that, there is no corroborating evidence direct or circumstantial tending to support the testimony of the prosecutrix that the sexual intercourse was an act of the accused and or that the pregnancy was as a result of an act of the accused.