<Hlniitting the statement. A trial within trial can be cnncluct I l ., • • . . th e ' t t-=> · ec O ul'.k11111n l'. \,\ hethtr s a tment ts voluntnry . See Iheme .v. State (20 13) 10 NW l.f< i nt 3 3 3 r-Z1:.3 59 . 1, I 36 2 ) ln the instant case, the defendant's counsel ob ·iected to tl1 e ad · ·b·1· r· h . llllSSI I 1ty O l t statement at the appropriate time . Even though the court admitted the statement as an exhibit, the court is still empowered to either rely on that exhibit or prot~ecl nu.t to attach any weight or accord any probative value to it. I have considered the defendant's evidence on how he was compelled to sign the exhibit p3 ; r have equally considered the evidence of other prosecution witness to know if there are corroborative facts to the ones contained in exhibit p3, I failed to see any . It is safer not to act only on exhibit p3 ; 1 find that there were substantial contradictions as to who zictual ly robbed p,v l on the day in question ,. I prefer not to attach any weight to exhibit p3 since the identity of the real culprit is in questions . See Rabiu .v. State (2010) l O NW LR (pt 120 I) 127 @ 159 . More so, al I the factors that \vould have swayed mind to the contrary are absent. firstly , the carter motorcycle vrns not tendered in evidence to enable me determine the colour. This is so because, the defendant himself agreed that he had a carter motorcycle but his is red in colour. He also agreed that he conveyed a passenger to Agulu on that day . The prosecution alleged that the one used for the robbery is yellow . Similarly, the prosecution had alleged that it was one lkemefuna Maduka that gave the defendant the said motor cycle; this Mr. Maduka was not called as a witness . None of the people the prosecution claimed that arrested the defendant was cal led to testify. I have stated earlier that the police men at police post, Agulu, to whom it was alleged the defendant was handed over initially was not called to testify . Had the above category of persons testified, their evidence would have assisted to reveal whether the defendant he fore me now ,vas one of the young men that robbed pw I. I agree with the prosecuting counsel that the prosecution is entitled to cal I vital witnesses to prove its case. . . . d. , t1ose ·I . ·,:., vi·ra I vv1·· t Iies- ~·-es- <·1rc 11ol c~lled . -In I lmvc VLT. it is always. fotal in crnrnnal trial . d -• '- ·· --- : ,. : ,. : ,_,._.. ___ [_ ,. __ ,_ ~ -~ fh o ·--•·AC"f" f"'l) f ; " ' ,., In nr()\ / f-' 1f-c:: {';l C::t~ hevon