for the prosecution properly made use of this opportunity of re-examination in this case. With regard to the offence of rape, the Courts have always looked for some independent evidence to show that the account of the prosecutrix is true i.e. that the offence was committed and that it was committed by the accused person. See: Posu Vs The State (supra). This is particularly pertinent in this case where the prosecutrix was a child of tender age. Notwithstanding the fact that the Court had satisfied itself that she understood the duty of speaking the truth as required by Section 209 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, by virtue of Section 209 (3) of the Act, her evidence required corroboration. Depending on the facts of the case, where the accused person denies the charge, some of the corroborative evidence may include but not limited to: (a) Medical evidence showing injury to the private part or other parts of the prosecutrix's body which may have been occasioned in a struggle; or (b) Semen stains on her clothes or the clothes of the accused or on the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed. See: Posu vs The State (supra); Afor Lucky vs The State (2016) LPELR - 40541 (SC); Isa Vs Kano State (supra). In the instant case, the trial Court took into account not only the credible evidence given by pw1, but also the evidence of her father, PW2, who though not an eye witness, testified as to how he examined his daughter and found sperm on her after she reported the incident to him and his report to the police. The Court also took into account the evidence of pW3 (the IPO) who recovered the trousers