6 denials of the accused. I will rely on this piece of evidence as there is nothing on record to urge me to do otherwise. I am therefore satisfied that there was sexual intercourse between the accused and the prosecutrix and this I shall hold as a fact. The crux of this matter now lies in the determination of the second issue; the element of consent or the lack of it. While the accused person has alleged in exhibit “A” that he did not do the act at all, the prosecutrix has contended that the accused did but also that he did so forcibly. In POSU V. THE STATE (2011) LPELR-SC. 134/2010), the Court held that the nature of corroboration must depend on the particular circumstances of each case and that where an accused person has denied the allegation of rape, 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. Exhibit “C” does not reveal that the prosecutrix sustained such injuries as could infer forcible coitus. The inference is that the sexual intercourse was not forcible. Having already held that it was the prosecutrix who visited the accused and having also held that the prosecutrix had refused to leave the accused person’s house when he