This is the crucial issu~ and that is that the defendant was among !hose _who took part in the robbery or stealing . In proving this in~red1ent of the offence of robbery, the P.W .1 whose relevant evidence has been highlighted above made it clear that she did not observe any, of the robbers . It was only the P.W.3 that stated in his evidence that the defendant was amongst the people that came and robbed their bank. When he was being cross examined he told the Court that he came to the police station and identified the defendant o:n .the day of the robbery. By the evidence of the P.W .3 he has fixed the defendant at the locus criminis and if his evidence is ac.cepted and believed, then he is one of the perpetrators of the crime. The learned counsel for the defendant in his written address had argued that the P.W.3's evidence of identification of th_e ·defendant cannot be believed because from the exhibits befo:re the Court there is no such evidence of identification. He referred to the concluding portion of the statement of the! P.W.3 and argued that what is contained there is that "if he sees the robbers he can recognise them" and not that he identified one of them . It is argued also that the evidence of identification is weak not having been tested in an identification parade. I think thisr,where the learned counsel for the defendant got it wrong as contended by the prosecuting counsel. Having not tendered the statement of the P.W.3 as an exhibit, there is nothing to be compared with his testimony in Court. Apart from this , it was the learned counsel for the defendant that cross examined the P.W.3 to adduce !the evidence he is now attacking. The evidence of the P.W.3 as the security man at the bank, Exhibit "C" and the circumstantial evidence from the P.W.1 and P.W.2 that part of the money stolen was recovered from the defendant when he was arrested :are the evidence tendered by the prosecution in proof of the offence of commission of robbery or stealing . The question that is relevant to ask at this point is whether the defendant can be convicted on the basis of his confessional statement which is Exhibit "C" in view of the fact that he retracted his extra judicial statement in his testimony in Court? The law is now firmly established as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that where a defendant confesses to a crime in his extra judicial statement to the police but in court, he retracts from his confession, prudence and the well laid down practice is that before such a defendant is convicted on the said confessional statement the court looks for some evidence outside the confession which would make the confession probable. I . 13 1