In further submission, the learned counsel for the appellant, opposed vehemently the evidence of PW1 on the ground that it was never corroborated by anything or by any witness; that while PW5 did not link the appellant to the offence, PW2 only saw appellant's trousers at his knee level. The counsel concluded on PW3's evidence as hearsay and that whereas, PW4 who took the Hausa version of appellant's statement never produced it in Court but tendered exhibit 'B' while PW6 tendered exhibit 'C'; that the pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution are not corroborative of each other within the meaning of Section 178(5) of the Evidence Act. Counsel urged that the issue should be resolved in favour of the appellant. Submitting in response and on behalf of the respondent, the learned counsel Mr. Daneji re-iterates as proved that appellant is not disputing that the victim (Pw1) was raped; rather that the fact of partial penetration leaves to question the appellant's link to the commission of the crime Counsel relates to exhibit 'A', the medical report which he submits shows clearly that with the breaking of the hymen, the evidence and surrounding circumstances all point to the fact that the appellant and nobody else was responsible. Copious reference was made to the testimonies of PW1 and PW2; that contrary to the argument on behalf of the appellant, the whitish discharge is not the only reason linking him (appellant) with the partial penetration but that there is sufficient corroborative circumstantial evidence that makes him culpable; that the two cases of Okoyomon v. State (1973) 1 SC 21 (1973) 1 NMLR 292, 296 297 per Elias CJN and Jos N.A. Police V. Allah Na Gani (1968) NMLR 8 were quoted out of context and do not support the case of the appellant as each case is to be determined on its own peculiar