-- - ·- - --------- - --- -- - be amongst the people who perpetrated the offence on that day. And I have found as a fact that the P.W.3 could not be able to identify the defe11dant as being in company of the people who robbed the bank when there was no close observation of the robbers. If it is true that the P.W.3 identified the defendant at the poHce station, at least, it will be clearly stated in the evidence of the P.W.2 and the Police Investigation Report which is Exhibit "A" . I don't believe the evidence of the P.W.3 to the effect that he identified the defendant at the Police Station. The evidence of the defendant as the D.W.1 is that he was not identified as one of the robbers at the police station . These are the reasons why I viewed the evidence of the P.W.3 identifying the defendant with suspicion . I find the evidence ofthe P.W.3 to the effect that he observed the defendant during the robbery incident and was able to identify him unreliable and unsafe. The implication is that the P.W.3 did not adduce any direct evidence linking the defendant with the commission of the offence of robbery or stealing . I will now consider the circqmstantial evidence adduced by the P.W.1 and P.W.2 . This piece of evidence made the learned counsel for the defen_dant to argue in his final written address that since the D.P.O. who·gave the information to the P.W.1 and P.W.2 as well as Supol Okoro who was the leader of the patrol team that allegedly arrested the defendant did not testify, the testimony of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 -in relation to the arrest and recovery of the money from the defendant is hearsay. I have in that regard painstakingly read the evidence of the P.W.1. Her evidence in relation to the arrest of the defendant is clearly hearsay evidence. But her evidence that they waited until his men arrived with the people and it happened that the money on them was in the wrapper of Oluchukwu Micro Finance Bank is not hearsay but evidence of what she observed . In the same vein, the evidence of the P.W.2 to the effect that the ·defendant told them that he fell down from the motor-cycle and was arrested together with the money they stole from Oluchukwu Micro Finance Bank is not hearsay evidence but e~idence of what the defendant told him. I come to the extra judicial statement of the defendant which is Exhibit "C". The learned counsel for the defendant in his final written address has argued that the Police did not comply with the provisions of section 13 (2) and (3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2010 in obtaining the confessional statement of the defendant which is Exhibit "C". He referred to the case of - - - --