"In an offence of this nature, the material contradiction is indeed of the essence and cannot be glossed over by any reasonable Tribunal which by law does not enjoy the luxury to pick and choose which of the two testimonies to rely upon in justifying a proof beyond reasonable doubt. The law is that if there are contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution and the contradictions go materially to the charge, doubt will be created and the benefit of it must be given to the accused person in which case he will be discharged. In other words, where there are inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence such as cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused person, such accused person should be given the benefit of doubt. See IKEMSON VS. THE STATE (1989) 6 SC (PT. 1)114; RAPHAEL NWABUEZE VS. THE STATE (1988) 7 SC (PT. 11) 157. In the case of BASSEY AKPAN ARCHIBONG VS. THE STATE (2006) 5 SCNJ 202, it was held that if there is any doubt as to the guilt of an accused person arising from the contradictions in the prosecution evidence, it must be resolved in favour of the accused. But the contradictions and inconsistencies must relate to the fundamental and core issues."

Per OSEJI, J.C.A. IN STATE v. ATETE CITATION: (2017) LPELR-43591(CA)