& ANOR v. THE STATE [1991] 7 NWLR (PT. 205) 567 AT 593; IDOWU v. STATE (1998) 11 NWLR (Pt. 574) 354 and AITUMA v. STATE [2007] 5 NWLR (PT. 1028) 466. In the case at hand, it is noteworthy that the accused is charged with having forged the land documents relating to Plots CP 1492 and MF 719D, Lugbe 1 Extension Layout, along Airport Road, Abuja, FCT, but both PW2 and PW4 called by the prosecution insisted in their oral testimony before this court that the land documents given to them by the accused are neither forged nor fake, whilst PW1 and PW3 insisted that the documents are forged. Since one of the ingredients that must be established in a charge of forgery is that the document was forged, it seems to me that this constitutes a material contradiction in the case put forward by the prosecution which is fundamental to the main issues crying for resolution before the court. See EFFA v. THE STATE (1999) 6 SCNJ 92 at 98 (per Ejiwunmi, JSC). The relevant enquiry therefore is whether this court is at liberty to accept or act upon these patently contradictory testimonies given by the prosecution witnesses. The law, as I have always understood it, is that where two or more witnesses testify in a criminal prosecution and the testimony of such witnesses is contradictory and irreconcilable, it would be illogical to accept and believe the evidence of such witnesses. See AGBO v. STATE supra at 564; ONUGBOGU v. THE STATE (1974) 9 SC 1 at 20; NASAMU v. STATE (1979) 6-9 SC 153 and AMADI & ORS v. STATE (1993) 11 SCNJ 68 at 78. The obvious implication of the foregoing is that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing one of the essential ingredients in the absence of which a charge of forgery cannot be sustained. 24 | P a g e