The Appellant's Counsel had argued that the trial Judge relied on the evidence of an infant without it being corroborated. The Supreme Court in Solola Vs. State (supra) held that the evidence of a child given on oath need not be corroborated. "A child who does not understand the nature of an oath is even competent to give unsworn evidence if in the opinion of the court such a child is possessed of sufficient intelligence to justify the reception of his evidence Solala Vs. State (supra). However, this infant having shown his understanding of what an oath meant and the seriousness of it, was sworn and gave his evidence. His evidence does not need to be corroborated if the trial Judge accepted his evidence as being positive and direct and believable. The confessional statement of the Appellant adjudged free and voluntary by the trial Judge was sufficient to warrant the Appellant's conviction. The evidence of the infant in Exhibit B is strong enough to convict the Appellant. However, both the evidence of the infant and the Appellant are materially the same. They both state how the Appellant beat the deceased, turned him upside down, hitting his head on the floor. Both their testimonies corroborate each other. Corroboration evidence is defined as "evidence given by an independent witness who confirmed in some material particular not only that a crime has been committed but also that it was committed by the accused person. See Amadi Vs. State (1993) 8 NWLR pt 314 page 644, Siwobi Vs. C.O.P (1997) 1 NWLR pt 482 page 411. The evidence of PW 1 the doctor corroborated the evidence of both the infant and the Appellant that the deceased died as a result of the injuries inflicted on him by the Appellant. The deceased died within 24 hours that he sustained those injuries. The evidence of the infant and the Appellant was enough to sustain the conviction of the Appellant. Issue one is therefore resolved against the Appellant. ISSUE TWO AND THREE