since the appellant gave a different story in court from Exhibits A and B he cannot be believed and
therefore had no defence.
On issue No.2, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there were no material contradictions
in the prosecution's case and referred to Nasamu v. The State (1979) 6 SC 153 and urged on us to
disregard the said contradictions. She finally argued this court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the
judgment of the trial court on the grounds that the case of rape was proved against appellant beyond
reasonable ground; it was in evidence that the appellant was in the school premises and he had the
opportunity to commit the offence and there are no material contradictions in the prosecution's case.
A consideration of this appeal must perforce start with the issue of corroboration. Is corroboration
required as a matter of law as argued by appellant's counselor desirable as submitted by the
respondent's counsel?
The particulars of the offence reproduced above is that the appellant had carnal knowledge of Oghogho
Ogunbor (the prosecutrix). Section 357 of the Criminal code defines rape in these terms:"S.357 Any person who has unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman or girl, without her consent, or with
her consent, if the consent is obtained by force or by means of threats or intimidation of any kind, or by
fear of harm, or by means of false and fraudulent representation as to the nature of the act, or, in the
case of a married woman, by personating her husband, is guilty of an offence which is called rape"
The offence of rape as defined in section 357 of the Criminal Code and made punishable under section
358 of the same code is different from offences provided in sections 218 and 221 of the Criminal Code
where it is specifically stated that a person cannot be convicted of any offence defined in these sections
upon the uncorroborated testimony of one witness (see also section 179(5) Evidence Act). Section 183
of the Evidence Act deals with the unsworn evidence of a child and stipulates in sub-section 2 that the
deposition of a child may be taken though not on oath and shall be admissible in evidence in all
proceedings where such deposition if made by an adult would be admissible. Where this is done, such
evidence must be liable to corroboration. It is so provided in section 183(3) Evidence Act which reads:"A person shall not be liable to be convicted of the offence unless the testimony admitted by virtue of
this section and given on behalf of the prosecution is corroborated by some other material evidence in
support thereof implicating the accused"
On the statutory provisions and the decided case, I do not agree with the submission of learned counsel
for the appellant that in rape cases, it is the law that before the prosecution can secure a conviction, the
evidence of the prosecutrix (victim of the rape) must be corroborated in some material particular, that
sexual intercourse did take place. PW2 gave sworn evidence and so could not come under the purview