"Be that is it may, the evidence of PW3 the prosecutrix still needs corroboration and I agree with the submission of learned defence counsel that the evidence of PW2, another witness of tender age cannot provide the necessary corroboration." Now, turning to the medical evidence of Dr. Mrs Sexena and her report Exhibit 1, the learned trial Judge on page 39 lines 24 to 27 further held thus: "I am satisfied that the evidence of PW5 and her contemporaneous recording of her observations in Exhibit 1 is sufficient corroboration of rape as described by the prosecutrix in her evidence before me." The law is firmly established that the evidence which is offered as corroboration must tend to show: (a) that the offence was committed and (b) that the accused is implicated in it. These two conditions must co-exist before a piece of evidence can qualify as corroborative evidence: See Thomas Idemo v. Inspector General of Police (1957) SCNLR 326; (1957) 2 FSC 26 As was stated in the case of Mbele v. State (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 145) 84 at 500, corroborative evidence must be evidence which confirms in some material particular not only that the crime has been committed but also that it was the appellant who committed it: See R. v. Baskerville (1916) 2 KBD. 658 at 667; Ogugu v. State (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt.366) 1 at p. 35, Omisade and Ors v. The Queen (1964) NSCC 170, (1964) 1 All NLR 233; (1964) 1 NMLR 67. In the case under consideration, the medical evidence of PW 5 and Exhibit 1 show clearly that Miss Patience Udo Essien had been raped but the evidence failed to link the appellant with the offence. I am therefore of the view that the lower court was abysmally in error in treating the evidence of PW 5 and Exhibit I as