strongest evidence of guilt on the part of an accused person as already alluded to. It is stronger than the evidence of an eye witness because the evidence comes out of the “horses’ mouth”, who is the accused person. There is no better evidence and there in no need for further proof, since what is admitted needs no further proof. See Akpan V The State (2008) 14 NWLR part 1106 page 72. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the defendant was in possession of Exhibits P2 and P17 which is the purported original letter of offer he gave to the nominal complainant and which was intercepted by AGIS for being a cloned and forged document. Exhibit P1 and the attachments thereto and Exhibit P8 confirms this position. The evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 which I have repeatedly referred corroborates this position in all material particulars. In Agwuna V Attorney General of the Federation (1995) NWLR (pt.396) 418 at 438 paras. G-H, the Supreme Court hold thus: “…it is certainly not the law that only the person who manually write or signs a forged document that may be convicted for the forgery of the document. The law is settled that all persons who are participies criminis, whether as principals in the first degree or as accessories before or after the fact to a crime are guilty of the offence and may be charged and convicted with the actual commission of the crime. Parties, participies criminis to a crime, include inter alia every person who actually does the act or makes the omission which constitutes the offence, person who aid, abet or assist them in the commission of the offence or who counsel or procure others to commit the offence or knowingly give succour or encouragement to the commission of the crime or who knowingly facilitate the commission of the offence.” I need not add to the above. In the absence of any counter evidence from the defendant, the conclusion I have arrived at with respect to Count 2 is that the prosecution has credibly established the offence of forgery under Count 2 and I accordingly find the defendant guilty as charged. Under COUNT 3 which flows from Count 2, the defendant is charged with fraudulently using the same title document he gave PW2 as genuine and emanating from the Department of Land, Planning and Survey FCT which he knew to be forged contrary to Section 366 of the Penal Code. Now Section 366 of the Penal Code provides as follows: 16