; r - -- -- - - -•-Eft:e:--1:9.,._t72:~>,,t flftl"H/ l:h:lld:t::fH •ri bloo? and th Defendant running away, I tried to hold her /Jut $he fell ... ;on t~e _groun . . .. ·:' The ,v,dence f the P_W2 points tq the fact that the Defendant was the last _1person een with the deceased and this situation demands evid,nce fro · the Defendant to ' establish otherwise 1~nd none was · provi~~d by the Defendant. . . ·.. Th: 1v1de_nce f PW2 under cross examination was consistent with her ev,djnce m chef as she broke down crying pointing to the Defendant as the 01ne who k lled Favour [the deceased] . The ~W-2 gav a graphic picture of how she was playing with Favour (dee ased and other little Children) and the Defendant came and called the deceased. According to her th~ Defendant took the deceased to a bush and tha she heard Favor shouting in the bush and saw the · defel dant run ing away while the deceased was shouting. The a~ove evi ence of Pw2 was all! corroborated and is in line with the Conf1ssion oft e Defendant. I In Ex~ibit C the Defendant stated:- I · ' "Howl I killed the deceased wasl that I saw her in front of their comp~und pla ing with other gir~s and I called her.... After itabbing the gl,t I ran qr ay". ! I I PW2 also stated that how she ~new the Defendant was that the Defendant us~ to smoke at the '. back of her house. Though the · Defendant de;l ied in chief of knowing the said Thank God and Emmanuel, h~ [ in sharp contradif tion admitted same under cross examination even to the fact that himself, Thank God and Emmanu~I use to smoke 1Jdian hemp at Ndidilimaka [PW2]'s backyard. T~e law. 15 I. h s or trite that a witpess who testifies falsely on a ~atter w,·th·1~ -Ii~ to her knowledge leav~s no room for any c!ourt to ascnbe any cred tb, Y 1 ' SUIT NO. 0/49c/2016: THE,STATE VS CHIBUIKE DURU Judgment deliver~d on 19/04/Z0lS