respectively. An attempt by PW2 to give the evidence was successfully objected to as being hearsay evidence. However, the evidence of PW5 in Exh. J as follows and I quote from Exh J inter alia "Sometime in January 2008 as the same Ugwunabankpa Inland Town Onitsha, he wanted to snatch a Honda Car property of my friend called Ifeoma Chibundu but when he noticed that I was inside the car he allowed us to go and snatched the vehicle behind us. I know that he is a notorious armed robber and a cocaine dealer. He has been coming to my shop to buy something, almost everybody in Umusiome knows him as an armed robber and we are all afraid of him." The learned counsel for the defence did not cross examine PW5 on this issue. I think that the above evidence of character and past conduct weighs heavily against the accused person." It is clear that the learned trial judge erroneously relied on the extra judicial statement of PW5 in Exh J to convict the Appellant. This is in clear violent disregard of S. 82 of the Evidence Act which provides as follows: (1) Except as provided in this Section, evidence of the fact that a defendant is of bad character is inadmissible in criminal proceeding. 2) The fact that a defendant is of bad character is admissiblea. When the bad character of the defendant is a fact in issue; or b. When the defendant has given evidence of his good character 3) A defendant may be asked questions to show that he is of bad character in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph c of the provision to Section 180. 4) Whenever evidence of bad character is admissible, evidence of a previous conviction is also admissible. 5) In cases where Subsection 4 of this Section applies, the Court shall only admit evidence of previous convictions which are related in substance to the offence charged. 6). Evidence of a previous conviction shall be proved in accordance with Part XIII See Kunle Shonubi v. People of Lagos (2015) LPELR-24807 (CA). Where a witness in a criminal trial made a prior extra judicial statement materially inconsistent with his evidence on oath, the trial judge is not permitted to pick and choose which evidence to believe and must disbelieve both and put no probative value on either. For the rule to be