Relating these principles of law to the evidence of PW3 and PW4 19 can it be said that the evidence of PW3 and PW4 corroborate the evidence of PW6 on the first ingredient of the offence? The evidence of PW3 and PW4 upon their examination of PW6 after the incident reveal that her vagina was tempered with, the opening into her genital track was hyperaemic and inflamed as a result of trauma. These pieces of evidence of PW3 and PW4 in material respect corroborate the evidence of PW6 that a hand or finger was inserted into her vagina; her vagina was tempered with, which evidence is in consonance with the findings of PW3 and PW4. In other words, both the evidence of PW3 and PW4 corroborate and materially strengthens the evidence of PW6 that a hand or finger was inserted into her vagina; that she was sexually assaulted or violated. Furthermore, apart from the evidence of PW4 of what PW6 told her that it was the Appellant who did that to her, the circumstantial evidence on record, I agree with both the learned trial Judge and the learned Respondents Counsel, are direct, strong, cogent and unequivocally points irresistibly at the Appellant. The undisputed evidence on record is that the Appellant who is a neighbour to 20 PW6s father (PW2) and enrolled PW6 in the school where he teaches, sometimes takes her to and back from school. On the fateful day, 11th June, 2013 the Victim was seen by most staff of the school including PW7, the Head Teacher of the school, playing on the Appellants motor-cycle and when told to go home, she said she was waiting for her uncle, the Appellant. The Appellant admitted he dropped her at home as confirmed by his wife, DW2 and PW6s mother, PW4. She was hale and hearty when last seen