admissibiliry of these documents and phone. Defence Counsel argued that the phone does not belong to the Defendant. The Court however admitted them in evidence on the ground of relevancy and reserved consideration of the weight to be attached to those Exhibits stage till the of final judgment. The I-phone 6 was marked as Exhibit PL; the printout of 28 pages from the I-phone 6 was marked as Exhibit P2 and the certificate of compliance marked as Exhibit P3. The Defendantls extra judicial statements dated 22"d June zAW and, 27th June 20l9,were tendered and admitted in evidence in the absence of any objection from the defence and marked as Exhibits P4 and F5 respectively. While being cross examined by the Defendant's counsel, pwl testified thpt he was amongst the officers who went for the raid, but could not rememter the exact number of boys they saw in the house because they arrested quite a number of them, and that the Defendant was not sleeping in the room when the house was raided. He testified that the Defendant wasn't holding the phone; the phone was found in the rgom where the Defendant was arrested. Insisted that the phone belongs to,the Defendant. The Defendant was not alone in the room and there w€re many other boys inside the room. Pwl testified that Exhibit P2 (print ouO was printed from Exhibit PI (the phone), and apurt from the writing in blue ink, the - ':"l l: l i.r ' . ';.,. ,'1 "..' '' ,] " Exhibit P2. That after Exhibit P2 was : a -tX4c{- 4 s