See: also R. v. Basker Ville (1916) 2 KB 658 at 667. It is thus clear that for that evidence to amount to corroboration, it must be extraneous to the witness who is to be corroborated. See: R v. White head (1929) I.K.B 99, 102. A person cannot therefore corroborate himself as the Learned Chief Justice pointed out, the witness only needed to repeat his story some 25 times in order to get 25 corroborations of it. See: R. v. Christie (1914) A.C 545. I would therefore agree with Mr. Mbye that the witness statement of the complainant at the police station of the cannot amount to corroboration of her evidence in court. But what then of the evidence of the accused person. Certainly there cannot be any better corroborating evidence than his admissions both on oath and in his voluntary and cautionary statements Exhibits 1 and 2. It is settled that the guilt of an accused person can be proved by his confessional statement, or by circumstantial evidence or by evidence of eye witness of the crime. See: Igabele v. The State 25 NSCQR 321 at 348-349. Similarly, in the case of The Queen v. Oblasa (1962) 1 AU NLR 6ST it was held that if a person makes a free and voluntary confession which is direct and positive and is properly proved, he may be convicted on the confession alone without any further evidence. See: James Obe Acha bua v. The State (1976) 12 SC 63. Furthermore, it is a fact that the complainant got pregnant after having sexual intercourse with the accused person and which pregnancy the accused has not denied. Infact it is his evidence that the child delivered by the complainant is being taken care of by his people. I therefore in light of the above I find as a fact that the evidence of PW3 has been sufficiently corroborated and hold that the prosecutions has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had carnal knowledge of the complainant. On the second issue of whether the prosecution has proved that the complainant was under 18 years of age at the time of the alleged offence. The complainant P.W3, testified that she was 18 years. She identified her birth certificate and tendered same in evidence which was admitted dispite the objection and marked Exhibit 4 P.W 4 Fabakary Gibba, the complainant’s father testified that she was born in 1992 and that he got her registered in 2003. The birth certificate having been admitted in evidence, it becomes indisputable that as at the date of the offence, the complainant was only 16years of age. The putting of counsel that “the date of registration of the complainant was made up very late in the day is of no moment. It is clear that the registration was done in 2003 well before the offence was committed in 2009. Thus there is no link between the two. Also, the defence has not led any evidence to buttress their point and was not able to dent the evidence of PW4 in cross-examination. The