Lastly, even though no objection was raised against the admissibility of exhibit A, appellant's extra judicial confessional statement, it is further argued, appellant's challenge that the statement was not recorded in a language he understands and that he did not sign the said statement makes the statement suspect and unreliable. Concluding on the 1st issue, learned counsel submits that by Section 209(1) & (3) of the Evidence Act CAP E 14 LFN 2011, the unsworn evidence of PW1, a child, requires corroboration. The lower Court is wrong to have affirmed the decision of the trial Court in breach of this statutory requirement. Relying inter alia on Jegede V. The State 14 NWLR (Pt 733) 264, Abogede v. The State (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt 448) 270 9 SC 1, Asanya v. State (1991) 22 NSCC (Pt. 1) 412 at 421 and Owei v. The State (1985) 4 SC 7 at 27, learned appellant's counsel urges that the issue be resolved against the respondent and the decisions of the two Courts below based on the faulty evidence be set-aside. On the issue, learned respondent's counsel submits that learned appellant's counsel is unable to know the difference between inconsistency and contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses. The inconsistency rule, it is contended, relates to the evidence of a witness in Court which contradicts or is inconsistent with the previous statement of the witness whether sworn or unsworn. None of the previous Statements of the three prosecution witnesses, learned respondent's counsel submits, is inconsistent with their testimony at trial. Besides, it is submitted, as a fresh issue raised without leave of the Court, the issue of inconsistency and or contradiction, being incompetent, it is urged, be discountenanced.