one hand and the evidence contained in Exhibit R2, Mr. Japheth’s ExtraJudicial Statement, where he stated that there was no Purchase of Grains, on the other hand, the Court is guided by the Principle of Law concerning the Duty of the Court. Where there is a conflict between the Extra-Judicial Statement by a Witness and his Oral Evidence in Court, the Court will refer to the Restatement by EKO, J.S.C in the Case of AMADI v. A.G IMO STATE (2017) LPELR42013(SC) AT PAGE 14-17, PARAS F-B, where he referred to MADARIKAN JSC, in OSENI v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC. 202/1968 decided on 16th July, 1969, (see Digest of Supreme Court cases, Vol. 10 at p. 166) where His Lordship held that “where there is a conflict between the written statement made to the police by a witness and his oral evidence in Court, the Trial Judge ought to resolve such conflict before deciding whether to accept the witness's evidence or not. To do that resolution between the Extra-Judicial Statement and the Oral Evidence both have to be legal evidence before the Court. In other words by dint of Section 209 of Evidence Act, 1990 in pari materia with Section 199 Evidence Act. 2004 (now Section 232 of the Evidence Act, 2011) the said previous statement in writing has to be, or must be, produced for the Trial Court's inspection, before "the Court may thereupon make use of it for the purposes of the Trial". The Oral and Documentary Evidence in contention must violently and substantially contradict themselves. Where they are mutually contradictory in materia particular, it will not be safe for the Court to pick and choose which of them was reliable and which was the unreliable version of the incidence. See: BOY MUKA v. THE STATE (1976) 10 SC. 305. Where the contradictions and inconsistencies that exist are minor, peripheral, they cannot be found to materially affect the Case of the Prosecution. See ESANGBEDO V STATE (1959) 4 NWLR (PT.113) 57 AT 83” Per PETERODILI, J.S.C (Pp. 31-32, paras. E-B) ISAH VS STATE (2017) LPELR43472(SC). 153