(1) Whether the prosecutrix was raped by the accused having regard to the position of the law on corroboration? (2) Whether the prosecution has proved the charge of rape against the accused beyond reasonable doubts? In support of the first issues, learned defence counsel referred the Court to a plethora of authorities both case law and statutory. In particular, counsel referred the Court to the case of POSU v. THE STATE (2011) LPELR, OKEYAMOR v. THE STATE (2005) INCC, 499 and Section 180 (2) of the Evidence Act to argue that corroboration is not only statutorily required for a Section 121 offence, but also that the prosecution must prove that the accused had contemptuous sex with the prosecutrix. She submitted that if anything, exhibit “A” has established that the sexual intercourse was consensual. Learned Defence counsel further referred the Court to the English cases of DPP v. KILBOURNE (1973) AC 729 @ 746, and DPP v. HERTER (1973) AC 296 to contend that the need for corroboration will only arise if the evidence which should be corroborated appears credible and capable of believe. In this regard counsel submitted that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 on the alleged forcible coitus of the prosecutrix by the accused cannot be believed in light of the evidence of PW4. It is for this reason that counsel urged the Court to rely on the reasoning in the case of BOJANG v. THE STATE (1997-2001) GLR, 98 to discharge and acquit the accused person. 3