3 Section 80(2) of the Evidence Act requires corroborative evidence to support the evidence of the prosecutrix. Such corroborative evidence must show that there was sexual intercourse, that prosecutrix did consent, and identify the accused as the perpetrator. The injury recorded in exhibit “C” includes a deep vaginal wall tear that required the prosecutrix to undergo surgery. This piece of evidence does not only corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix, but it also satisfies the requirements of section 180 (2) (a) of the Evidence Act in that regard.By virtue of her age, it is obvious that the prosecutrix could not, did not consent. In most criminal cases and indeed, as in this case, the crucial issue is not ordinarily whether or not the offence was committed. More often than not, the controversy is about who the perpetrator is. As far as the identity of the perpetrator is concern, the law requires that the corroborating evidence must not only confirm that an offence has been committed, but must also point to the accused as the person who committed it(R v. BASKERVILLE (1916) 2 KB 658 at 667). It is necessary therefore,to find out if there is any evidence on record corroborating the evidence of the prosecutrix that the act is that of the accused. In addition to the identification by the prosecutrix, there is evidence that the accused was traced by reference to his alias. There is therefore strong circumstantial evidence pointing at the accused as the perpetrator of the offence. From totality of evidence adduced I do not have