whereas minor discrepancies depend on the person's astuteness and capacity for observing meticulous detail". Reference is also made to the Cases of AKPAN V. STATE (1991) 3 NWLR (PT. 182) 646 SC, DAGGAYA V. STATE (2006) 7 NWLR (PT. 980) 637 SC AND in OCHEMAJE V STATE (2008) 15 NWLR (PT. 109) 57, where in Tobi, JSC, explained - Contradictions definitely arise in evidence of witnesses in Court. That explains the human nature and the humanity in witnesses. Although witnesses see and watch the same event, they may narrate it from different angles, in their individual peculiar focus, perspective or slant. This does not necessarily mean that the event they are narrating did not take place. It only means most of the time that the event took place, but what led to the event was given different interpretations, arising from the senses of sight and mind dictated by their impressions and idiosyncrasies. That is why the law says that contradictions, which are not material or substantial will go to no issue. The Main Interest of the Court, is that the witnesses are in Union or Unison as to the happening of the event but gave different versions in respect of the peripheral surrounding the event”. In the Cases of THE STATE VS AZEEZ & ORS (2008) 8 SCM 175; (2008) 4 SC 188; DIBIE & 2 ORS VS THE STATE (2007) 7 SCM 101; (2007) 3 SC (PT.1) 176; STEPHEN JOHN & ANOR VS THE STATE (2011) 12 (PT.2) SCM 238, it was severally held as Trite Law that for inconsistency or contradiction in evidence to negatively affect its veracity, such inconsistency and contradiction must be materially significant as to affect negatively the Overall Case Of The Prosecution, otherwise such insignificant inconsistency or contradiction will be discountenanced by the Court. See also GALADIMA V. STATE (2017) LPELR-43469 (SC), PER ARIWOOLA, J.S.C (PP. 29-30, PARA. E) The Contentions in regard to Contradictions will be situated when applicable in the determination of this Case. 59