evidence. According to the learned defence counsel, the only evidence the prosecution seems to rely on is corroboration of pw3 is the medical report, exhibit B. According to the learned counsel, the medical report relied upon by the prosecution does not support the prosecution’s case and cannot serve as a corroboration to the testimony of any of the prosecution witnesses. On the medical report, exhibit B the learned defence counsel stated that even though exhibit B reveals an alledged absence of hymen from the prosecutrix Virgina opening the medical report failed to show the presence of any bruises or injury attributed to the use of force and occasioned by an alledged rape by anyone including the defendant. It is also failed to show who ruptured the hymen. It only state that the hymen was ruptured. The learned counsel contended that the corroboration must not merely establish that a crime has been committed must go to identify the accused with the crime in some material particulars. The learned counsel contended that the medical report tendered, exhibit B does not in any way link the defendant to the commission of the crime with which he is charged. It is the further submission of the defence counsel that in the event this Hon. Court found that the charge against the defendant was 19