defendant hit the deceased with a stick on the head. It is to be noted that the evidence of PW4 and PW5 is clearly a direct evidence of what transpired in this case. These witnesses were together with the defendant and the deceased on their way back from the local wrestling and stated clearly in their evidence how the fight between the two groups started and the role played by each one of them. The defendant testified in his own defence as DW1 and narrated to this Court his own side of the story. He clearly denied hitting the deceased with a stick on the head and thereby resiling from his earlier confession in exhibit A and A1 where he admitted hitting the deceased with a stick which resulted in the deceased being admitted at Specialist Hospital Sokoto where he died. In fact his testimony before this Court, the defendant portrayed himself as the victim where he alleged that it was one Aliyu Lawwali that used a machete to inflict an injury on his head which made him to fall down unconscious. The defendant told this Court that he could not remember whether he made a statement to the police or not. It is to be noted that as I stated earlier the defendant in his evidence before this Court when he testified as DW1 stated that he could not remember whether he made any statement to the police or not and that he denied hitting the deceased with a stick on the head. The defendant clearly resolved making exhibit A and A1 and in such a situation the Court is not to reject the confession of the defendant but to use such a confession where the Court is satisfied on the truth of the confession. In the case of Ayeni v. State 2021 LPELR 34736 CA, the Court of Appeal held as follows: 16