"In the instant case, the appellant, at the trial apart from not objecting to the admission into evidence of Exhibit P3, did not allege that he was beaten or tortured in making the confessional statement. If that were the situation, the learned trial judge would have been duty bound, to conduct a trial-within-trial, in order to determine the voluntariness or involuntariness of the said confessional statement. Osuagwu v. The State (2013) 1 SCNJ 33 at 58 - 59. However, since that was not the scenario at the trial, the learned trial judge was eminently justified in admitting into evidence, the appellant's confessional statement, that is, Exhibit P3." Per YAKUBU, J.C.A. (P. 24, Paras. A-D) (...read in context) 6. EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION/CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE: Nature of evidence required as corroboration for the offence of rape "The learned trial judge, found that the pieces of evidence proffered by the prosecutrix - PW1 and the medical officer - PW4 who examined the PW1 after the sexual assault on the latter, were uncontradicted. And after reviewing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, his Lordship found as follows at page 77 of the record of appeal: "Following from the above, it is my view that the entire evidence of the prosecution which was in no way challenged or contradicted by the defence, establishes on unequivocal terms the fact of rape of the victim in this charge, Ezinne Ukpai. The evidence of the victim (PW1) and the medical doctor (PW4) together with the medical report, Exhibit "P5" established the fact of sexual intercourse. It is trite from judicial decision that the term "carnal knowledge" means sexual intercourse which is complete upon penetration. See