7 The nature of corroboration must also depend on the particular circumstances of each case and where an accused person has denied the allegation of rape, as in the instant case, the evidence of corroboration that the Court must look for, is for instance (a) medical evidence showing injury to the private part or to other parts of her body which may have been occasioned in a struggle, and (b) semen stains on her clothes or the clothes of the accused person on the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed (POSU V. THE STATE (2011) LPELR-SC. 134/2010). In exhibits “F1-F2” the medical reports of PW2 and PW3, there is evidence of penile penetration and a broken hymen. These pieces of evidence were unchallenged and uncontroverted. I admit them as establishing the facts therein. These pieces of evidence corroborate the evidence of PW2 and PW3 of the repeated sexual encounters they had with the accused person. I therefore find as a fact that the accused had sexual intercourse with PW2 and PW3. I must confess that, while there is evidence on record corroborating the subsequent voluntary sexual encounters between the accused and PW2 and PW3, there is no evidence on record corroborating the purported first and involuntary sexual encounter between PW2 and the accused. The available evidence on record therefore falls short of the mandatory requirements of Sections 180 (2) (a) of the Evidence Act. The issue of forcible coitus in this regard, has in my view not been established with the certainty required by law. In view of this finding,