the statement witl form part of the facts finding mission of the Court in its judgment. Now, the P.W.1 in her evidence testified that the armed robber apprehended by the Police made his statement to the Police when they were making their own statement to th e Police. The P.W. 2 on his own part claimed that at the office pf the Divisional Police Officer the defendant narrated how r' they committed the offence before them and the I.P.O. recorded all that he told them and .he signed. However, the defendant as the D.W.1 in his evidence stated that he was handcuffed and leg cuff was used to bind his ' legs. An iron bar was inserted at his legs and hands where they were bound together and then hanged in such a way that his head was pointing downwards. The police officers were pinching him with pin and the one that was smoking , at intervals will apply the lighted cigarette on him and burned his skin. This went on for two hours before they brought him down and produced a doeument for him to sign . He refused to sign the document and one-of the officers hit him with a dagger injuri(lg him at his hand. They held his hand and signed the document. : It is therefore clear that the defendant in his evidence before the Court is challer,ging Exhibit "C" on the ground that it was involuntarily obtained. However, he supported the evidence of the P.W.2 to the effect that he signed Exhibit "C". As rightly submitted by the learned :counsel for the prosecution in his final written address, the praetice is for the defendant who denies that his extra judicial statement , made to the police was voluntarily made to object to the statement when the prosecution seeks to tender it in evidence. When this is done at that stage, the Court proceeds to test whether the statement was obtained voluntarily by conducting a trial within trial on the admissibility of the statement and the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the statement was free and voluntary. In the :instant case, the extra judicial statement of the defendant was admitted in evidence as its being obtained voluntarily was not challenged at the appropriate time. SEE: AUJA VS. STATE (1975) 4 5. C. 125. EFFIONG VS. STATE (1998) 8 NWLR (PT. 562) 362. As I said earlier, th~ available evidence adduced by the defendant is that he signed Exhibit "C". The evidence of the defendant did not contradict the evidence of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 to the effect 6