go to the minutest details. If every contradiction however trivial to the overwhelming evidence before the trial, will vitiate a trial, all prosecution cases will fail. Human faculty may miss details due to lapse of time and error in narration in order of sequence. A contradiction to be fatal to the prosecution's case must go to the substance of the case and not be of minor nature. See SELE V. THE STATE (1993) 1 S.CN.J part 1 at page 15; YAKI V. STATE (2008) ALL F.W.L.R part 440 page 618 at 644 paras B-C. P.w2's evidence under cross examination that the Appellant told the Police that he never knew how the incident happened is self serving being the father of the Appellant. I am inclined to believe that he gave this answer to save the life of his son who is the Appellant. Justice is not to the Appellant alone, the deceased in her lonely grave is crying for justice and there must be justice for the society at large too. The Court holds from the evidence on record that Fausat Sunday died, that her death was as a result of the gunshot which resulted from the Appellant's act and taking into account the nature of the weapon used and the part of the body affected on the deceased by the act of the Appellant, the Court is not left in any doubt that the Appellant knew or had reason to believe that death would be the likely consequence of his action. The prosecution has proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. P.W4 laid proper foundation for tendering the photocopy of Exhibit B. He told the Court thus: "I was later transferred and I handed the case file to Inspector Johnson who later transferred to Lagos and the case file was transferred to late Corporal Warri and since then the case file could not be traced. The case file was earlier duplicated and sent to D.P.P." See page 17 lines 21-24 of the record of proceedings. The learned trial Judge gave adequate evaluation of the evidence for the prosecution and the defence. He also considered possible defences that were not even raised by the Appellant before arriving at his decision. Issues 1 & 4 are hereby resolved against the Appellant. On issue 2 Learned Counsel to the Appellant submits that the failure of the prosecution to investigate and disprove the alibi of the Appellant raises a reasonable doubt against the testimony of P.w2 which placed the Appellant at the scene of the crime. He submitted that the testimony of P.W2 was one of the major pieces of evidence upon which the Appellant was convicted. He urged the Court to resolve the doubt created by the failure of the Police to cross check the Appellant's alibi in favour of the Appellant. It is settled principle of law that it is not every failure of the Police to investigate an alibi raised by an accused person that is fatal to the case of the prosecution. See PATRICK NJOVENS & ORS V. THE STATE (1975) 5 S.C page 12 at 47 where the Supreme Court held "There is nothing extraordinary or exoteric in a plea of alibi. Such a plea postulates that the accused person could not have been at the scene of crime