can apply for the medical doctor to be summon either for purpose of cross examination or any other reason but since the defence counsel did not exercise his right of making an application to call the medical who sign exhibit A&B for purpose of cross examination neither the court nor the prosecution can compel the defence counsel to make such application and prosecution is not bound to call all witnesses provided in the opinion of the prosecution the witness so far are sufficient for the prosecution, I refer to the cases of:- Galdima V. State (2017) LPELR 43469 (sc) - Bayo Adelumola V. The State (1988) NWLR (pt 73) (1988) LPELR 119 (sc) pp (30-31) Paras E-A And though the defence said they would wished the medical officer to come to court, he did not specifically request or insisted on the presence of the medical doctor. Indeed our superior courts have held that it is not always mandatory for the maker of a medical report who examined the victim(s) of rape to be present in court to give evidence see BUBA V. THE STATE (1992) NWLR (pt 215). The production by either party of the medical report signed by the medical officer is sufficient evidence of facts stated therein see. - Kolawole V. State (2015) LPELR 24400 (sc) Furthermore, the learned defence counsel has argued that contradictions exist between the evidence of PW4 and PW5 as against their oral and extra judicial statement. A piece of evidence is contrary to another when it assets the opposite of what the other asserts and not necessarily when there are minor Page 16 of 23