5 amongst others, evidence of (a) the denials of the accused, (b) the last opportunity the accused had to commit the offence, (c) medical evidence of the examination of the prosecutrix confirming the allegation of recent forcible coitus and (d) the existence of recent semen in the vagina of the prosecutrix directly traced or traceable to the accused (OGUNBAYO v. THE STATE (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035). It is settled that where an accused person has denied the allegation of rape, as in this case, 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 (POSU v. THE STATE (2011) LPELR-SC. 134/2010). If the accused used such force on the prosecutrix as she has alleged, that force would have normally left some traces of bruises. The alleged rape is believed to have taken place on the 31 of May 2011 and the prosecutrix was examined the very next day 1 June 2011. I have looked at the treatment card (exhibit “A”) carefully and observed the diagnosis thereon as “Abnormal vagina discharge. No sign of penetrating sexual intercourse or struggle”. My understanding of the above diagnosis is that the abnormal vagina discharge was not as a result of any recent sexual activity. Furthermore, the fact that the prosecutrix presented with an abnormal vagina discharge was suggestive of the fact that she could be suffering from some form of sexually transmitted disease. The police ought to have