recovered from the defendant. I have the duty to consider whether there is any evidence corroborating the confession which is Exhibit "C" . By the evidence of the defendant, he denied committing the offence which is contrary to Exhibit "C". As a result of th is, the learned counsel for the defendant in his written address attacked the correctness of the identification of the defendant which he alleged to be mistaken. In that regard , I have considered the evidence of the identification of the defendant as adduced by the P.W.3. The case here is the correctness of the identification of the defendant by the . P.W.3. I have warned myself of the special regard for caution and the need to weigh such evidence of identification of the defendant with other evidence adduced by the prosec·ution before convicting the defendant in reliance on the correctness of the identification. It should be borne in mind that recognition may be more reliable than identification of a stranger; but even ·when the witness is purporting to recognise someone whom he knows; the jury should be directed that mistakes in recognition of close Telatives and friends are sometimes made. SEE: IKEMSON VS. STATE (1989) 3 NWLR (PT. 110) 455. NDIDI VS. STATE (2007) 13 NWLR (PT. 1052) 633. Where the identity of a defendant crops up in a case, the court must not only warn: itself but must meticulously examine the evidence proffered to see whether there are any weakness capable of endangering or rendering worthless any contention that the prosecution witness had enough time to observe the defendant. If the quality of the identification evidence is good and remains good at the close of the defendant's case, the danger of a mistaken identification is lessened but the poorer the quality the greater the danger. SEE: NDIDI VS. STATE (Supra). This will now take me to examine whether there is any weakness capable of endangering or rendering worthless the contention that the defendant was sufficiently observed by the P.W.3 at the scene of the crime. In order to satisfy the Court that he sufficiently observed the defendant and will be able to identify him, the P.W.3 testified as follows:15