(1963) SCNLR 191; Reekie vs. Queen (1954) 14 WACA 501; Sunmonu vs. IGP (1957) WRNLR 23 and Ogunbayo v. State (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt.1035) 157 at 156 and 157. In the State vs. Ogwudiegwe (1965) NMLR 117, it was held that in order for the prosecution to secure a conviction for the offence of rape, corroboration of the evidence of the complainant implicating the accused is not essential but a judge must warn himself of the risk of convicting on an uncorroborated evidence of the complainant. But in Okpanefe vs. The State (1968) 1 All NLR 420, it was held that by virtue of Section 178(5) of the Evidence Act, the Court cannot convict on a charge without corroboration. Similar decision was reached in Sambo vs. The State (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt.300) 399. From the concession made by the appellant (above quoted) it is very clear the said appellant has provided the required corroboration when he conceded that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the medical report (Exhibit A) both of which established the fact that there was a penetration. Corroboration is not a technical term of art and means no more than the evidence tending to confirm, support and strengthen the other evidence sought to be corroborated - See Ogunbayo vs. State (supra). However despite all that I have said, I have noticed that the learned trial judge has before taking the evidence of PW4 (the prosecutrix) he has not followed the procedure enjoined by the law - Section 155 and 183(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act. The said witness is a child of 6 years of age. This is from the evidence of PW1 at page 8 of the record of proceedings. When asked by the Court how old was the daughter - she replied that she was about six years old. When the learned Chief Judge know this his first duty was to put her through the normal test of knowing whether she was a competent witness or that she know the nature of taking oath. This test was recommended in the case of Dagaiyya vs. State (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt.980) 637. On the procedure that the court must adopt in taking the evidence of a child in criminal proceedings, the Court must to determine whether in the first place she is sufficiently intelligent and whether she could give rational answers to question and secondly whether she know the nature of an oath - See Okoye vs. State (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt.69) 172 and Mbele vs. State (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt.145) 484 and Sakibo vs. State (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt.300) 399. As I said the learned trial judge did not put any question to the prosecutrix who was a girl of tender age. But in Mbele vs. State (supra) it was held that the provisions of the Evidence Act will be satisfied even though the actual question and answers are not recorded. In any case the witness (PW4) has given an unsworn testimony. Therefore she could not know the nature of an oath. I now adopt the decision in Mbele's case and therefore not recording the question put to the witness did not matter.