Learned Counsel also complained of improper evaluation of evidence by the trial Court and that if the Court had properly evaluated the evidence, it would have seen the material and unresolved contradiction in the prosecutions evidence as to who actually committed the act, and that the attempt made by the learned trial Judge at P. 103 of the record to resolve the contradiction was speculative and cannot take the place of facts; that the pieces of circumstantial evidence upon which the finding that the facts and circumstance point irresistibly at the accused is based are not cogent, compelling and unequivocal. For circumstantial evidence to ground a conviction, he submitted, it must lead to only one irresistible conclusion of the guilt of the accused but in the instant case the evidence of PW4 & PW5 is not such as would lead to irresistible conclusion that the Appellant committed the offence but leaves room for a 8 doubt which must be resolved in favour of the Appellant. For this he relied on the cases of OKETAOLEGUN VS THE STATE (2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 797) 677, 692 693 H A; ZUBAIRU VS THE STATE (2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 794) 179, 195, E F. Also that the invocation of Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act against the Appellant for failure to call his mother as a witness to rebut the evidence of PW2 that the Appellants mother pleaded with PW2 to withdraw the case is wrong and does provide direct, cogent and compelling evidence to ground a conviction or serve as corroboration. We were urged to hold that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant and to resolve the issue in Appellants favour. Submitting per contra and insisting that the prosecution proved all the ingredients of the offence of gross indecency beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Respondents Counsel submitted that the evidence of the Victim of the offence (PW6), a girl of 5 years of age who narrated her ordeal how the Appellant raised her leg near a tree and put his hand in her vagina; that she felt pain and cried,