- Visible posternal vaginal wall distosted posteration. - Vaginal fouchette hynienal Nothes at 3 and 9 o’clock are suggestive of blunt vaginal penetration. - Anal examination - Moderation redish anal sphingeric tove laceration at 7 o’clock are suggestive of blunt and penetration. Both Exhibits A and B indicate that there was vaginal orifice (opening) both the vagina and the anus has been penetrated, undoubtedly these findings of the medical doctor upon examination of the victims soon after the commission of the offence, are consistent with and support the evidence of PW4 and Pw5 and in law constitute corroboration. As held per JSC in ISA V. KANO STATE {supra} the extent of penetration no matter how slight will serve sufficient proof penetration with or without emission, is sufficient even where the hymen is not rupture. Again it was submitted by the defence counsel that the said Exhibits A and B were improperly admitted. On the tendering of the medical reports by one of the IPOs who investigated the case and not the maker of the medical report as a witness, it is not the law that in every rape case the maker of the medical report must be person in court to give evidence, the need of the maker of the medical report to be called as a witness to give evidence arises only when the defendant disagrees with the report or where it appears desirable to court for the ends of justice to call the medical officer to give evidence in person, there was his such disagreement with the contents of the medical reports. By section 55 (3) of Evidence Act 2011 as amended either party to the proceeding Page 15 of 23