9 deduced from circumstantial evidence which, could include amongst others, (a) the denials of the accused, (b) the last opportunity the accused had to commit the offence, (c) medical evidence of the examination of the prosecutrix confirming the allegation of recent forcible coitus and (d) the existence of recent semen in the vagina of the prosecutrix directly traced or traceable to the accused. In POSU V. THE STATE (2011) LPELR-SC. 134/2010 the Court held that the nature of corroboration must depend on the particular circumstances of each case and that where an accused person has denied the allegation of rape, the evidence of corroboration that the Court must look for, is for instance (a) medical evidence showing injury to the private part or to other parts of her body which may have been occasioned in a struggle, and (b) semen stains on her clothes or the clothes of the accused person on the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed. As far as this offence is concerned I must be quick to add that there are two issues to be corroborated here; the act of sexual intercourse and the element of consent or the lack of it. With regards to the issue of sexual intercourse exhibit “D” the medical certificate of the prosecutrix confirms that there was sexual intercourse within the last two to three days. This to my mind is enough corroboration of the act of sexual intercourse. It now seems to me that under the peculiar circumstances of this case where the accused had kidnapped the prosecutrix, it cannot be