neither the Evidence Act nor the Criminal Procedure Act or Code provides for corroboration in the offence of rape. I therefore ask, where did we get that law The eminent Jurist advanced clues as to the materials from which corroboration could be gleaned. In his views: ...If our adjectival law requires corroboration (a point I am not prepared to concede), then corroboration could be deduced from inter alia the denials of the accused, the last opportunity the accused had to commit the offence, medical evidence of the examination of the prosecuting confirming the allegation of recent forcible coitus and the existence of recent semen in the vagina of the prosecuting directly traced or traceable to the accused.[Italics supplied] In the instant appeal, the appellant would appear to have underrated the probative value of the unchallenged evidence of PW5, the Medical Doctor. Be that as it may, his attitude to that evidence is immaterial for, in my humble view, the Lower Courts, rightly, concluded that the Prosecution proved the offence of rape under Section 283 of the Penal Code against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is for these, and the more detailed, reasons in the leading judgement that I, too, shall dismiss this appeal as being unmeritorious. I abide by the consequential orders in the leading judgement.