The corroborative evidence is sufficient even if it is circumstantial in nature so long as it connects or tends to connect the defendant to the commission of the offence see - Dorugo V. State (1992) NWLR (pt 255) 625. In the case at hand, after the incident occurred and mother of PW4 notice the blood in their toilet after her daughter pass urine the attention of her father was drawn, father of PW4 went to the house of the PW5 and informed her father what was going on after which they lodge complaint to the police station, immediately after which the victims were taken to Nana Khadija medical centre at Specialist and examined by a medical doctor who issued his report Exhibit A and B. The report of the medical examination of the victims as shown on Exhibit A and B sign by Dr. Auwal Ahmed Musa who examined the victims is as follows; - Exhibit A (for Faika/Faiza PW4) vaginal examination. - Hymenal Nothes A1 12 and 3 ocloax. - Easily visible postenal vaginal wall are suggestive of blunt vaginal penetration. - Poor anal hygiene. - Peri anal bruises and laceration M7 and 4 o’clock moderation redish anal sphingeric tove are suggestive of repeated blunt anal penetration. - Exhibit B (for Amina PW5) vaginal examination. Page 14 of 23