before me that he also went to attend the meeting. This witness has also not stated before me that at about 6:30 p.m. accused Kadir brought his father back from the meeting in a motor cycle and he also followed them after 10 minutes. This witness has also not stated before me that hue(sic) he was returning in his bicycle he saw, in the light of bike, that Nurul was running with a weapon in his hand.” Hence, the case which he made out in the examination-in- chief that he saw appellant no. 3 running away with the weapon in his hand in the flash of the motorcycle's Criminal Appeal No. 1637 of 2021 Page 18 of 23headlight is an omission. This omission is very significant, which amounts to contradiction. Therefore, his evidence remains material only insofar as his statement about appellant no. 2 taking his father on a motorbike at 4.00 p.m. The witness stated that at 4.00 p.m., his father went to a meeting with appellant no. 2, as his father was an influential leader of Congress. Therefore,