committed a week previously. Under cross-examination this witness said ironically that she lived in Small Soppo and the accused did not commit the offence. The foregoing is a summary of the evidence on which the prosecution is inviting me to convict the accused of the offences of Indecency to Child under sixteen contrary to section 346(4) of the Penal Code and Slight Harm contrary to section 281 of the same code. It is alleged in Count One of the charge preferred by the learned examining magistrate inter alia that the accused had sexual intercourse with PW1, a child aged seven and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under section 346(4) of the Penal Code. It is also alleged in count two of the charge that at the same time and place by the use of force he caused to PW1 a minor inability to work lasting for 21 days, thereby offending the provision of section 281 of the Penal Code. As concerns the offence of indecency to child contrary to section 346(4) of the Penal Code with which the accused is charged in count one, the evidence of PW1, the victim of the offence, in her examination in chief is that the accused penetrated her by inserting his penis into her vagina. However, when she was giving evidence under crossexamination she told the court repeatedly that the accused penetrated her through her anus. The evidence of PW2, the mother of PW1, is that her daughter complained to her that she was raped by the accused and she had a wound in her vagina. The legislator has …………the term ‘in case of rape’ in section 346(4) of the Penal Code the section under which the accused is charged in count one. Moreover, it has been alleged in the charge in count one that the accused had sexual intercourse with PW1. It follows that the question whether the accused had sexual intercourse with PW1 is material in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused in count one of the charge. It is clear that the evidence adduced by the prosecution on this point is marred by inconsistencies and contradictions. The evidence of PW1 in her examination in chief that the accused penetrated her through her vagina is inconsistent with what she said under cross-examination. The 1st PW’s evidence under crossexamination on the issue of sexual intercourse also contradicts the evidence of PW2 that PW1 told her the accused had sexual intercourse with her and she had a wound in her vagina. It is trite law that contradictions of evidence of witnesses may not necessarily be fatal to a case especially when they are minor and did not materially affect the fundamental and crucial issues. However, where contradictions or inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses are material to the proof of the ingredients of an offence, they are fatal to the case of prosecution. See ATIKU v. STATE (2010) A NWLR (PT 1199) 241. 6