and only inferentially that he was not there. Even if it is the duty of the prosecution to check on a statement of alibi by an accused person and disprove the alibi or attempt to do so, there is inflexible and for invariable way of doing this. If the prosecution adduces sufficient and acceptable evidence to fix the person at the scene of crime at the material time, surely his alibi is thereby logically and physically demolished." In the instant case, the alibi was raised in the Court by the Appellant when he was giving evidence. The answer of P.w2 in Court to cross examination that "The accused in my presence told the Police that he never knew how the incident happened" should not be taken as an alibi but a denial of the Appellant committing the crime. The Court has made its findings on the denial. Assuming it is, the evidence of the alibi in Court raised for the first time will be like engaging the Police in a worthless exercise of investigating a bottom less defence. See STATE V. AZEEZ (2008) 43 W.R.N page 1 at 57 per Oguntade J.S.C and ONYEGBE V. THE STATE (1995) 5 S.C.N.J at 275-277. It will be a Herculean task for the Police to investigate the alibi raised when Appellant was testifying in his own defence in court. The trial Court's rejection of the plea in view of the res gestae made by the deceased to P.W2was proper. The defence of alibi will not avail the Appellant. Issue two is hereby resolved against the Appellant. Learned Counsel for the Appellant on issue 3 submitted that the Appellant is an illiterate who can neither read, write nor understand English. He argued that the trial was conducted in breach of Section 36 (6) (c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and in breach of the Appellant's right to fair hearing. He argued further that P.w3 who is a child was tested by the Court whether he understood the nature of an oath but did not determine whether the child was sufficiently intelligent to understand questions put to him as provided by Section 155 (1) of the Evidence Act. It is only after a Court has satisfied itself that the child is sufficiently intelligent that it is required to determine if the child understands the nature of an oath and how the Court came to be satisfied was not recorded. He referred to the case of SAMBO V. THE STATE (1993) 6 N.W.L.R at 399. He urged the Court to resolve the issue in favour of the Appellant. The opinion about a child witness is as the section clearly shows, "the opinion of the Court" so that when a Judge sits alone, he is undoubtedly the person whose opinion is relevant. See ONYEGBU V. THE STATE (1995) 14 S.C.N.J page 275 at 288. Where the child comprehends the essence of an oath and the Court is satisfied, the first question is also impliedly satisfied see PETER VS. THE STATE (1997) 12 S.C.N.J page 53 at 66 where the Supreme Court held: "Where in the opinion of the Court, a child understands the nature of an oath, it is not necessary for the Court to carry out further preliminary investigation for the purpose of ascertaining whether the child has