also referred to, in the lpo in the presence of pw1 to write same. Exhibit D was police station. order to show that Exhibit B was written or done at the PW1 stated that Reference was made to the testimony of PW1 where she, then' the the reconciliation process took place at the police station' and' and, that, the lPo' defendant was given two weeks extra, to do the reconciliation, PW2 was not Present" of the prosecution' It is submitted that there are inconsistencies in the case Musa V' The state The case of Dogo V. The state (2001) FWLR (Pt' 39) 1388, (2021) 12 NWLR tpt. 1790) 268 at 2BB and others cited in this regard' denied Then, on Exhibit D again, it was submitted that DW1 vehemently evidence' The case Exhibit B. This court was also urged not to pick and choose was cited and reried of Musa V. The state (2021) 12 NWLR (pt. 1790) 268 at 2Bg upon. make the It was further submitted that the defendant was compelled to forced in Account reconciliation in Exhibit B, and, that she was also subsequently parting with the sum of N4OO,QOO= as a condition for her bail' Exhibit It is submitted that the police are not debt collectors, and, that B was an undertaking to that effect' (CA) and The case of Nwadingwu V. IGP & Ors (2015) LPELR - 26027 cited and relied onagoruwa V. IGP (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 195) 593 (CA) were upon on the issue of Police not being debt collectors' It was further submitted that the evidence before the court contains "Bus!", it was inconsistencies" Then, on the software programme called section 167 (d) of the submitted that this court shourd invorve the provision of were tendered' The Evidence Act, 2011 as amended, since no bank statements AII FWLR (Pl' 417) case of l.B.N. Ltd. v. Attorney General, Rivers state (2008) that count ll was 10 was cited in respect of speculation. lt was also submitted discharge and acquit unnecessarily brought. Then on issue two, this Court was to contradiction and a the Defendant in the basis of glaring inconsistencies, material finally urged to fabrication against the Defendant. A frame up. This Court was discharge and acquit the Defendant' reasonable It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove it's case beyond refers' doubt. The case of John ogbunbujo & Anor. (2001) 2 ACLR 522a|528 See Obilum See further Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, as amended' Anekwe V. The state (1998) 1 ACLR 426 at434' 13