the case of Ezigbo v. State (supra) and Adonike v. State (2015) 7 NWLR (pt. 1458) 237. It was part of the evidence of PW1 that accused dragged her into his room and asked her to undress. When she refused, he threatened her with a machete, beat her three times on the back with the machete, tore her cloths and pant and pushed her down. He brought out his penis and inserted into her vagina and had sex with her with blood coming out of her vagina three times that night while tying her mouth and hands. The evidence of PW1 of accused penetrating her vagina with his penis was corroborated by PW4 (the medical doctor) and Exhibit "P5" (the medical report). 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