- ----~---- ------- -- -- -- ------ Apart fro~ this, .1 have rejected his evidence that th e defendant was _standing at the entr~nce door of the bank and poi nted a gun at h1_m . Y'Jhen he was being cross examined, the P.W.3 admitted that in his statement to the police, he stated that when the robbers came, he hid inside a vehicle in the compound . Later, Me stated that he ran away and hid beside a vehicle. In reality, there is contradiction here; and evidence suggestive of lack of close observation of the robbers by the P.W.3. Apart from this, there is no evidence that the P.W.3 was observing the robbers from the vehicle he was hiding or even from beside the vehicle he also claimed that he hid himself. As long as the P.W.3 was not led to testify that he observed the robbers and particularly the defendant as the robbery operation at the bank was going on , the Court cannot speculate that he was observing them . Besides, since the P.W.3 ran away when the robbers came, I don 't think he could observe them from' where he was hiding as to be able to identify the defendant as one of the robbers who robbed the bank. I cannot imagine how the P.W.3 would still be able to observe the 4 robbers as to be able to identify the defendant when cold fear went down his spine as the robbers came and he hid himself in a vehicle in the compound . As a matter of fact, the circumstance in which the P.W .3 as an eye-witness saw the robbers is not akin to a relaxation mood t~ be able to identify any of them and the length of time was very brief. It should be appreciated that from the evidence of the P. W.3, he did not say when the robbers left after the robbery operation. It is therefore clear to me that the P.W.3 due to the time and circumstances did not have full opportunity of observing the features of any of the four robbers who robbed the bank as to be able to .identify the defendant. I now come to the evidence of identification of the defendant at the police station by the P.W.3. By the available evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the defendant was held out to be amongst the people who robbed the bank and he was brought in contact with the prosecution's witnesses without any attempt at identification. It should be appreciated that the defendant was not arrested at the scene of crime but in his statement he admitted the commission of the offence of stealing. Since the defendant at least admitted the commission of the offence of stealing there is no need for the P.W.2 to conduct an identification parade for the P.W.3 who claimed that he could recognise the robbers to identify the defendant as being in company of the people who robbed the bank. As I said earlier, the defendant had already been held out to 17 ---