as hearsay evidence as they are direct admissible evidence. Exhibit ICPC BGKB1 and 2 are therefore properly admitted in evidence. - Okon V. State (2019)42 WRN 53. - Arogundade V. State (2009)13 WRN 1. - Olaye V. State (2018) 42 WRN 1. 1st Defendant’s Counsel contended that PW3 is not a witness of truth because while he testified to the fact that it was the 1st Defendant who paid him his salary in open Court, his statement in the proofs of evidence did not show that fact. It is trite law that only documents that are tendered and admitted in evidence before the Court are evidence before the Court which can be utilized by the Court. - Kekong V. The State (2017)18 NWLR pt 1596 p 108. - Gwiwa V. Anzaku (2019)37 WRN 27. The statement of PW3 at ICPC Office having not being admitted in evidence cannot be utilized by this Court in the determination of this Suit. The 1st Defendant’s Counsel also contended that the failure of the prosecution to call Barr. Ibrahim Habib in order to ascertain the source of the money refunded as shown by Exhibits ICPC BGKB3 and 4 is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is trite law that if on the entire evidence the trial Court is left with no doubt that the offence was committed by the accused person, doubt is discharge and the Court will be right to convict the accused person even on the credible evidence of a single witness as the prosecution is not ban to call a host number of witnesses. - Alo V. State (2015) LPELR 24404 - Musa V. State (2005)1 NCC 87 at 102. 18