PW2 gave ev id e nc e o n "h a 1 happ e ned o n th e d~t) of lhL i11ciclcn1 . Cou nsd submi17ed thaL considernrions s uc h as th e kngth tim e th e \\ ilness saw !h e \___ · defenda nt is importa nt in de rermining \\·h er her th e w itn ess positi ve ly identified the accused p erson .. For exa mple. vvhe1her ir ,-v~1s a l a g hlnce or h a\'i ng a longer observation a nd opponuni1y of close observarion . S he conlended tlwt Ili c armed robbery incide nt happe ned in broad day light; !here/o re th e re was enough limt.: fo r a close observation by P\V I and PW2 . or Learned co un se l ma int a ined that rhe robbery was an a rmed one . Thal the ~le /cnd c1n1 ,vas in company with an armed person . Therefore the defendant was an adcomplice . She submitted rhat the defendant was positively recognized and identified by PW I a nd PW2 . Learned counsel submitted that an identification parade is nol obligatory where there is good and cogent evidence linking the defendant to the crime on the da v of incident. Counsel referred to Afofrllu vs. State Supra. Bolanle VS . State., s upra . It was further s ubmitted that a spontaneous identification of an accused perso n is more reli ab le than identification parade . Ochiba vs . State supra, is referred to and relied upo n. On the issue of the evidence of PW4 . lea rned counsel argued that being part of the investigating tea m that in ves ti ga ted th e crime, PW4 has the capacity to give evidence and render the extra judicial sra re m ents . She submitted that confessional sta tement is an official record of th e police. Therefore, a policeman can tender official rec o rd of a fellow police ofti ce ,·. She referred to Awosika vs. The State (:?O l 0) 9 N WLR (pl l l 98) 49 (q! 76 . She contended thc!t exhibit PJ is the defendant' s confessio na l s tat e m ent in w hi c h he gave vivid description of how he and one Dozie Akparanku robbed the Capad filling Station vvith a locally made pi s tol. Learned co unsel refers to S . 28 of Evidence Act and submitted that exhibit ··PJ " clearly comes within S . 28 of Ev idence Act. Therefore, the subsequent denial of the statem e nt by the defendant is an afterthought. To show that the retraction by th e defendanr is an afterthoughr, learned counsel queried how the rn ves ligating Police Officer reco rded acc urately rhe person a l derails of the defendant . Contending th at s uc h information is personal only knmvn to rhe defendanL Counsel submitted in c1 conl'cssiona l s wtemenl, w here a n accused person admitted c1ll the essemial e lements of an offen ce a nd which shows unequivocally, his direct and pos itive participation in the crime, he can be convicted . The case of Odu vs . FRN (2002) 5 N WL R (pr 761) 615 . Was referred to and relied upon . On the iss ue of 11 0 1 calling v ital vvi tn ess, lea rned counsel submiltecl that ii is th e prerog a rive the · pros ecution to ca ll w irnesses rele vn nt to its case and it is 11 01 bound ro ca ll every person th a t was linked to the sce ne of crime by physic~ll presence to give evidenc e of v.1hat he saw. She referred to Ochiba vs . State, s u1;r;1. or Finall y learned co un s el s ubmiu e cl 1ha 1 th e iss ue in · respect of' vo luntarinL"ss or o1hern is e o J' ex hibit P 3 /1c15) been ruled ulll because tltc docum e nt w~,.s t1d111iucd i l.S exhihi1 " P3 .. I ec1 rncd co un sel urge d 1hc co11n w hold 1liu1 thL· prnsL·c uli()IJ lw.':i pru , cd thL· Cd ~ l · .1g:11n.':> l the: c.kli.: 11d~1nl. Pag e I6