As regards Hearsay Evidence, His Lordship, RHODES-VIVOUR J.S.C (Pp. 19-20, Paras F-C) in FRN v. USMAN & ANOR (2012) LPELR-7818 (SC) well stated the definition of Hearsay when he held that "The question to be answered is what constitutes Hearsay Evidence. A Witness is expected to testify in Court on Oath on what he knows personally. If the Witness testifies on what he heard some other Person say, his Evidence is Hearsay. Such Evidence is to inform the Court of what he heard the other Person say e.g. in cases of Slander. If on the other hand his Testimony is to establish the Truth of an Event in question or as in this case to establish the truth of the contents of the Appellants Statements, it is Hearsay and Inadmissible Evidence. Hearsay Evidence is Secondary Evidence of an Oral Statement best described as Second-Hand Evidence. What a Witness says he heard from another Person is unreliable for many reasons. For example he may not have understood the Informant/Interpreters, or he may say things that were never said. Such evidence remain Hearsay Evidence because it cannot be subject to CrossExamination in the absence of the Informant/Interpreters." As regards the Contention that the Evidence of an IPO constituted Hearsay Evidence, the Court refers to the Cases of ANYASODOR V. STATE (2018) LPELR-43720 (SC) (PP. 20-21, PARAS E-C); KAMILA VS STATE (2018) LPELR-43603 (SC) (PP. 22-23, PARAS. D-A) and OLAOYE VS STATE (2018) LPELR-43601 (SC), where it was severally held PER SANUSI, J.S.C. that an IPO gives evidence on what he actually saw or witnessed, or what he discovered in the course of his work as an Investigator. His testimony will be positive and direct on what was narrated to him by the Witnesses he came into contact with, in the course of his investigation, and can therefore never to be tagged as Hearsay. An IPO only narrates to the Court the outcome of his investigation or enquiries or what he recovered or discovered in the course of his duty. He must have discovered or recovered some pieces of evidence vital to the commission of the crime, which Trial Courts normally consider in arriving at a just decision one way or the other. See also the Cases of OLAOYE VS 60