prosecution failed to tender it as part of the evidence at the trial, the court can look at it as it has become part of the court’s record and see how unreliable, uncontradictory and unworthy the testimonies of PW2 is. See OYEWOLE v AKANDE (2009) 15 NWLR 9Pt 1163) 119 at 148 Paras A – E. It is submitted that from the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW4, it is clear that the testimonies are so contradictory that it is very unsafe to rely on them. The statement made to the police by PW2 also contradicts his oral testimony in court. See SHOFOLAHAN v STATE (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt 1338) 281 at 311 Para A – B. It is the submission that the failure of the prosecution to produce the statement made to the police on the 12/5/14 is fatal to their case. Court is urged to invoke Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act. It is the contention that the testimony of the PW4 materially contradicts the testimonies of other witnesses and leaves room for doubts that should and ought to be resolved in favour of the accused person. Court is referred to the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4. It is submitted that the medical examination and its outcome are most unhelpful to the case of the prosecution, it established no nexus with the accused person and the crime alleged; that PW5 testified under cross-examination that her findings was based on history and not physical collection of evidence; that the evidence put in by the prosecution is by no means corroboration; they are mere items of evidence raising suspicion. Suspicion has no place in our laws. See UDOR v STATE (2014) 12 NWLR (Pt 1422) 548 at 560 – 670 Paras G – A. 16