- - - - - -- -- - -- u I see the defendant in the dock. I know him . The defendant and others came to rob at Holy Cross Parish Nkpor with a sack containing A.K.47 rifle . The defendants were 4 in number and they came with two motor-cycles. Two of them were on top of the motor cycles , while 2 people entered inside the bank. The defendant pointed a gun at me and told me that if I move, he will shoot me." When the witness was cross examined on the point, he testified that the defendant was standing at the entrance of the bank, while the other person entered the bank and he pointed the gun at him . He then ran away because he was not having a gun and he hid himself beside a vehicle. Now, the learned counsel for the defendant has contended in his final written address that there is contradiction in the testimony of the P.W.3 as regards the particular· point he was during the robbery operation . It is now settled principle of iaw that to ascribe any value to the evidence of an eye witness regarding identification of a criminal , the courts in guarding against cases of mistaken identity must meticulously consider the following issues:1. The circumstances defendant. 2. The length of ti~e the witness saw the subject or defendant. 3. The lighting conditions. 4. The opportunity of close observation. 5. The previous contacts between the two parties. SEE: NDIDI in which the eye-witness saw the ys. STATE (Supra). From the evidence of the P.W.1 the incident happened in the afternoon. Although one could not see the outside very well through the sliding door but she could see the robbers through the sliding door when they arrived . It is therefore understandable why the P.W.3 in his evJdence under cross examination was not challenged that he could not identify the defendant because it was dark or the weather was not clear on that day. The P.W.3 did not testify that he knows the defendant before or had seen him before the incident. So there was no previous contact between them . 16