"With regard to the offence of rape, the Courts have always looked for some independent evidence to show that the account of the prosecutrix is true i.e. that the offence was committed and that it was committed by the accused person. See: Posu Vs The State (supra). This is particularly pertinent in this case where the prosecutrix was a child of tender age. Notwithstanding the fact that the Court had satisfied itself that she understood the duty of speaking the truth as required by Section 209 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, by virtue of Section 209 (3) of the Act, her evidence required corroboration. Depending on the facts of the case, where the accused person denies the charge, some of the corroborative evidence may include but not limited to: (a) Medical evidence showing injury to the private part or other parts of the prosecutrix's body which may have been occasioned in a struggle; or (b) Semen stains on her clothes or the clothes of the accused or on the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed. See: Posu vs The State (supra); Afor Lucky vs The State (2016) LPELR - 40541 (SC); Isa Vs Kano State (supra)." Per KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C. (Pp. 32-33, Paras. B-A) (...read in context) 11. EVIDENCE - PLEA OF NON EST FACTUM: When a plea of non est factum will not avail a person "The Court also relied on the appellant's confessional statement, which he attempted to retract at the trial. The statement was admitted without objection. He identified his signature written in Arabic language although he claimed that he did not understand the English language in which it was written. In other words, that it was not his statement. The facts contained therein tally substantially with PW1's account. The retraction of a confessional statement at the trial does not