8 PW1 gave sworn evidence. The above notwithstanding, Section 180 (2) (a) makes it mandatory for the Court to seek for corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix. This is especially so as the accused has denied the allegations. In terms of Section 179 of the Evidence Act 1994 “Corroboration consists of independent evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn which confirms and supports in some material particular the evidence to be corroborated and connects the relevant person with the offence, claim or defence”. Corroboration is therefore any evidence that tends to confirm the evidence of the prosecutrix on any material issue. See the West African Court of Appeal Case of R v. SEKUN & Ors (1941) 7 WACA, 10. It is also settled that the corroborating evidence must be extraneous to the evidence of the prosecutrix. See R v. WHITE HEAD (1929) I.K.B 99, 102. In cases of this nature where the offence is not likely to be committed in the full glare of the public, safe in cases of flagrante delicto, it may be practically impossible, to expect a direct eye witness account in corroboration of the offence of rape. It may therefore be impossible to prove the matter charged by the direct and positive testimonies of eye witnesses. According to the learned author of Archbold’s Criminal Pleadings and Practice, 39th Edition paragraph 1141, the Court can, with propriety, act on circumstantial evidence. In OGUNBAYO V. THE STATE (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035), the Court per TOBI JSC (as he then was) held inter alia that in cases of this nature corroboration could be