prosecution witnesses testified categorically an emphatically to seeing the defendant commit the offence alleged against him. She contended that PW1 and PW2 who alleged to have seen the deceased on the night of the incident, gave inconsistent and contradictory testimonies as to the alleged location of the deceased after the incident and is fundamental to the case of the prosecution. - Gabriel V. State (1989) 5 NWLR pt 122 p 457. - Ukatu V. FRN (2021) 10 NWLR pt 1785 p 519. She further submitted that doubt has been casted on the coherence and credibility of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and urge the court not to give credence and reliance on their evidence. - Opera V. State (2006) 9 NWLR pt 986 p 508. - Aikhdueki V. State (2014) 15 NWLR pt 1431 p 530. Defence counsel further submitted that although the incident was said to have happened on the 31/3/2020 and the deceased died on the 2/4/2020 at UDUTH, there is no medical report as to the cause of death of the alleged deceased. She concluded on this point by submitting that what may have actually caused the Page 5 of 34