"The Court is unable to find any contradiction in the evidence of P.W2 and P.W4 as alleged by the Appellant's Counsel as a court of law is enjoined to consider the total package of the defence and not to go to the minutest details. If every contradiction however trivial to the overwhelming evidence before the trial, will vitiate a trial, all prosecution cases will fail. Human faculty may miss details due to lapse of time and error in narration in order of sequence. A contradiction to be fatal to the prosecution's case must go to the substance of the case and not be of minor nature. " Per FASANMI, J.C.A. (P. 21, paras. DG) (...read in context) 4. EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE OF A CHILD: Whether where a child comprehends the essence of an oath and the Court is satisfied, such can form the opinion of the Court "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 sufficient intelligence to satisfy his giving evidence and understands the duty of speaking the truth as prescribed by Section 183 of the Evidence Act". The Court was satisfied that P.w3 understood the meaning of giving evidence on oath." Per FASANMI, J.C.A. (P. 25, paras. B-G) (...read in context) 5. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - MURDER: Whether or not in case of murder a man is taken to have intended the natural consequences of his act "Let me however quickly say that in our jurisprudence, a man is taken to have intended the natural consequences of his act. I will also add that the Appellant shooting the deceased with a gun knew to his knowledge that it would cause death and it is heavier in retaliation for slapping and hitting one with a plate. I hold that the act of the Appellant which caused the death of the deceased was intentional with the full knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequences." Per FASANMI, J.C.A. (P. 17, paras. D-F) (...read in context)