,1dmi11ed 1/Jat th e defendant rn1d th e mot orcycle ,vc rc trn ns krrcd lo S/\ l<S h)' 1l1c \, . Uiv ision ol Crim e oHicer. Di visional Police Headquarters, Ne11i . The n.: v, ;1s 110 : po li ce o nicer from Nigeri an poli ce post, Agulu that came to tes tily 0 11 how 1hc defendan t WclS arres ted. The police reli ed on the so called eye witn ess ~1cco u11t to conclude th eir in ves tigcltion . The res ults of th e rolice in ves ti gc.1 1ion c1 rc th e: confli cting statements and evidence of the prosecution witn esses in thi s rn~c . I !Ju ve no doubt in ni y mind th at iden titi es or the rea l robb ers are still sh,i·oudcd in confusion. The obvious contradictions with respect to real identity of th e defendant as to wh eth er he was one of the boys th at robb ed pw 1 are materi al and s ubstanti al. The prosec uti on witn esses gave incons istent or cont ra dictory tes timoni es about th e robbery itse lf and the perp etrcllors of the robb ery th at seri ous doubts were CclSl on tile L'lltire c,1se o /' th e prosecution . I am full y aw are that it would he: miraculou s to find two persons who witn essed an in cid ent g ivin g id enti ca l acco unts or it when th ey ui·c ca lled upo n to do so at a future date. If that were to happen s uch acco unts wo uld be treated with s uspi cion as it is lik ely th at th e witn esses co mpared notes . /11 efl ect , minor va ri ati ons in testim oni es seem to be badges of truth . /n any eve nt.. co urt s h,we eve n taken th e view !h ell witn esses may 1101 al\,vays sp t·,Jk or th e sa me l:.1cts or event s with equa l and reg im ent ed acc uracy . See Uc he v Stat e (2 0 I 5) 11 NWL R (p t 1470) 380 @403 - 404 . However, in th e case be fore me, I am seri ously both ered with wheth er th e defend ant is act uall y one of th e ro bbers. More so, th e prosecu ti on ad mitted th at no money or weapon was fo und on him or recove red from hi s house . Yet it was .claim ed th at he was arres ted ba r·ely one hour c.1/'tcr th e robb ery incident. Jt beca me even more co nfou nding 1vvhen pw l and pw2 s tated th at it was th e de !end ant th at snatched th e money from pw 1at th e fi 11 ing s tati on. Th e pw3 who ~1c tu ull y did an ac t th at led to th e arres t o r th e defe nd ant did not adduce cogent C\' idence to show wheth er it was th e defendant or not who actmtlly participated in th e crim e s in ce he was not present al th e pl ace th e de fendant ,vas arres ted. Worse still. p\\'3 was not an eye ,,v itn ess to th e crime. Aga in st th e foregoing Jindings , / hold th at Lhe prosec uti on did not pro ve th e real id entities of th e defe nd nnl as it concerns hi s in vo lve ment in th e ro bbery in cid ent. Thi s leads me to th e confess ional statem ent tend ered as ex hibit PJ. Al th e tenderin g or thi s docum ent , an objecti on was raise d aga in st its admi ss ibility c1s an ex hib it in th is case . The ground of the ob_jecti on is th at th e co n/'ess ional st atem ent wils not vo lun ta rily made in that the defendant was tortured and oppressed be /ore he signed th e statem ent. Thi s objecti on was predi cated on Secti on 29(2) (a) of the Evidence A ct. :?O I I as amend ed. I hi s oh_ject ion ,vas ovl: rrul cd and th e statement wa s admillcd ~1ml marked c1 s l:'..x hihit PJ. I do nor int end here to rev isil 1h c1 l rulin g. Ho weve r. s inc e th e cle lendant in hi s orfl l ev id ence. les ti/i ed how he was Jl oggccl , tortured. wo unded mid compelled to Page I 15