In view of all the above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution in this case through credible and contradicted evidence has succeeded in establishing the act of the rape of the victim and I so hold. I must say that I do not have any difficulty in agreeing with the findings of the learned trial judge. They are borne out of the evidence placed before him. There is a clear connection between the evidence of PW1 with that of PW4 vis-a-vis Exhibit P5. I am satisfied that the evidence of PW4 read together with Exhibit P5, clearly connected with the sexual defilement of the PW1 by the appellant. In other words, the evidence of PW1 was amply corroborated with the evidence of PW4. In Iko v. The State (2001) 14 NWLR (pt. 732) 221 at pp. 240 241; (2001) LPELR 1480 (SC) at pages 12 14, my Lord Kalgo, JSC succinctly stated that: Corroboration in my understanding simply means confirming or giving support to either a person, statement or faith. What then constitute corroboration in law? In R. v. Baskerville (1916 17) All ER Reprint 38 at 43, Lord Reading CJ defined what evidence constitutes corroborative evidence for the purpose of the statutory and common law rules when he said:We hold that evidence in corroboration must be independent testimony which affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime. In other words, it must be evidence which implicates him, that is, which confirms in some material particular not only the evidence that the crime has been committed but also that the prisoner committed it. The test applicable to determine the nature and extent of the corroboration is thus the same whether the case falls within the rule of practice at common law or within that class of offence for which corroboration is required by statute It therefore follows, in my