discrepancies in details when a piece of evidence confirm the opposite of what the other evidence affirms on a material fact, that piece of evidence is said to contradicts each other when they are themselves in consistent on material facts but not on minor discrepancies see. - Bassey V. The State (2012) LPELR 7813 (sc). - Ogoala V. The State (1991) 2307 (sc). In other words, a contradiction to negatively affect the credibility on the overall case of the prosecution see. - Alani V. The State (1993) 7 NWLR (pt 303) 112, 120 B-C. - Omonga V. The State (2006) 14 NWLR (pt 1000) 532. It is thus trite that only material and fundamental contradiction that raises doubt in the mind of the court as the guilty of the defendant that should affect the decision of the court see. AWOPEJO AND ORS V. THE STATE (2001) LPELR (SC) the apex court held that contradiction must be such as to create doubt in the mind of the court to a degree that the court believes that the doubt must be resolved in favour of the defendant. Similarly in FALEYE VS THE STATE (2012) LPELR 20429 (CA) it was held that minor discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that do not affect the ingredients of the offence are not sufficient to entitle a appallent to an acquittal and not fatal to the prosecution case A study of the evidence on record and the applicable law reveal that there is really no contradiction between the evidence of PW4 and PW5 Page 17 of 23