independent evidence establishing same.- See N.A. Police vs. Allah na Gani (1968) NMLR 8. We are urged to allow the appeal on this issue. In the respondents brief written by A. A. Ibrahim Esq.., it was pointed out that the appellant has conceded that the prosecution has proved the essential elements of the offence of Rape which are lack of consent and penetration. He however contended that the evidence of PW4 (The prosecutrix) being an unsworn evidence of a child has not been corroborated by an independent evidence as required by law (see page 4 issue No.1 of the appellants brief). It is submitted in the respondents brief that corroboration means no more than evidence tending to confirm, support and strengthen other evidence sought to be corroborated. It needs not be direct evidence that the accused person committed the crime. It is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime - See Oladotun Ogunbayo vs. The State (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt.1035) 157 at 179, Dagayya v. The State (2006) 7NWLR (Pt.980) 637 at 682. It is submitted in the brief that the evidence of PW1, PW2 as well as Exhibit A (The medical report) are sufficient corroboration of the evidence of PW4. We are urged to hold that the evidence of PW4 was duly corroborated and to discountenance the argument of the appellant under issue 1 as the prosecution is not under any obligation to prove a case beyond fanciful doubts - See Bakare vs. The State (1987) NWLR (pt.52) 579 at 579. In the resolution of the first issue our starting point is to consider first the concession made by the appellant in his brief of argument in these words: "Although the issue of consent does not arise, we submit that the only evidence before the trial court upon which the trial court relied, are the evidence of the prosecutrix and the medical report (Exhibit "A") all of which we concede establish the fact that there was penetration." This concession deals with the important essential ingredient of the offence of rape namely that of penetration. The argument in the appellants brief is centred on whether there is a corroboration of the evidence of an unsworn child of 5 years old. Now the immediate question to ask is whether or not corroboration is required. Corroboration of the evidence of a witness is not required except where the law demands it. Evidence of corroboration of the evidence of the victim in rape cases is not a requirement as a matter of law but only in practice. In other words in cases of sexual character it is eminently desirable that the evidence of the prosecutrix or complainant should be strengthened by other evidence implicating the accused person in some material particulars. It is however not the law that the accused person in a charge of rape cannot be convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix - See the cases of Iko v. State (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt.732) 221; Ibeakanma vs. Queen