being cross examined . And the failure to tender the statement has divested the Court the opportunity to compare the said statement with the testimony of the P.W.3 and so affects the probative val ue of the testimony pf the P.W.3. It is his contention also '. that th e PW.3 put to rest any doubt to the credibility of his testimony in that he gave graphic details of how the gun was pointed at him and he sought refuge beside a vehicle. Learned counsel for the prosecution ·then submitted that the procedure adopted by the defence in its bid to impugn the evidence of the P.W .3 by referring to the contents .of his statement to cast aspersions on his testimony in Court is wrong. Relying on the case of ESANGBEDO VS. STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 113) 57 he submitted that the only way to discredit the testimony of a witness by demonstrating that it is in conflict with his extra judicial statement is to tender the statement. 1 The learned counsel for the defendant in his cross examination did not really attack the claim of the P.W.1 that there was a robbery at the bank where she works . This is not surprising because in such circumstances the crucial issue is not ordinarily whether or not there was robbery :and the robbery was an armed robbery. In most cases, the controversy always rages over whether the defendant alleged as the actual perpetrator of the offence charged was the person who was seen committing the offence. This case is therefore -one of the exceptions in that the learned counsel for the defendant has challenged the claim of the P.W.3 that the robbery was an armed robbery. Let me say straight away that the contention of the Jearned counsel for the prosecution does not apply in the instant case with reference to the point under consideration . r say so because the P.W.3 admitted before the Court that in his statement he stated that he hid in one of the vehicles in the compound when the robbers came. Having made the admission, the learned -counsel for the defendant can no longer tender his statement to contradict him. And of course, that his admission becomes his viva voce evidence before the Court. Now, looking at his .evidence from this perspective; is his testimony that the defendant was standing at the entrance of the bank, and he pointed the gun at him; he then ran away because he was not having a gun and hid himself beside a vehicle truth of what transpired on that day? I don't think so. I say so because when you relate this evidence to his evidence in chief, the point I am making will be appr~ciated. The witness had earlier in his evidence 9 :/