In case at hand, the prosecution relied on the evidence of the victim (PW1), PW4 (the IPO) and the confessional statement of the Appellant, Exhibits A & A1. On the proof of the first ingredient, that Appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim, PW1, the victim of the offence in her evidence at pages 3 ??? 4 of the record, testified as follows: ???PW1 My names are Maryam Abdullahi, I am 11 years of age. I live in Gidan Kaya in Birnin-Kudu Local Government Area. My occupation is to make ropes. Yes, I know the accused person only on the day of the incident. On the 30/04/2012 we went to the garden, on our way 14 back we met the accused person rearing cows on the way we greeted the accused but the accused did not reply our gesture. The accused run towards us and got hold of me. The accused person then put his penis inside my vagina. I felt pain. The rest that we were coming back went to my home and informed my father, but before the arrival of my father the accused escape from the scene???. Learned Appellant???s Counsel has argued that the unsworn testimony of PW1, a child of 11 years of age requires corroboration and that the evidence of PW4 and the wrongly admitted Exhibit A do not corroborate her evidence. I quite agree with the learned Counsel that the unsworn evidence of PW1, a child below the age of 14 years, requires corroboration both as a matter of law as stipulated in Section 209 (1) and (3) of the Evidence Act and by established practice as a matter of prudence. See OBRI VS THE STATE (1997) LPELR ??? 2194 (SC); DAGAYYA VS THE STATE (2006) LPELR ??? 912 (SC). ???Corroborative evidence is confirmatory evidence or additional evidence to that already given. It is supplementary 15