plausible should never be allowed by a Court of law to fill any hiatus in the evidence before it, an inference 27 is a reasonable deduction from facts available before the Court. See IVIENAGBOR VS OSATO BAZUAYE & ANOR (1999) 6 SC (PT. 1) 149 per Uwaifo JSC. Thus, the said finding by the learned trial Judge which is based on evidence on record and reasonable inference from the evidence, is a finding of fact and not a finding based on speculation as strenuously but erroneously argued by the learned Appellants Counsel. Similarly, it can also not be argued that the contradiction was not explained by evidence. While it is trite that where there are contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses on a material fact and the contradictions are not explained by the prosecution through any of its witnesses, the Court should not speculate on or proffer the explanation for such contradictions and is precluded from picking and choosing which it would believe, see MUKA & ORS VS THE STATE (1976) 9 & 10 SC 305 AT325, where as in this case the trial Judge adverted his mind to the contradiction/discrepancy but found same satisfactorily explained, his findings based upon the explanation offered by the prosecution witnesses cannot be said to be speculative 28 nor can the contradiction be said to be unresolved. I therefore discountenance the Appellants submission that the contradiction was unresolved and the finding of the lower Court thereon is speculative. In the result, in agreement with the learned Respondents Counsel, I also find that the prosecution proved the first element or ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant.