On the issue of hearsay evidence as submitted by the learned defence counsel were by he submitted that the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW6 are hearsay evidence. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 is clear when they testified that after they discovered about what happened to their children, they went to Dadin Kowa police station and reported the matter and later the PW4 and PW5 were taken to Nana Khadija medical centre Specialist Hospital Sokoto their evidence in my view was unshaken during cross examination they were testifying as to what they heard, and observed, therefore their evidence is not hearsay evidence contrary to the submission of learned defence counsel. Also PW3 (the investigating police officer at Dadin Kowa Division) and PW6 (the IPO from SCID Sokoto), the 2 officials that is the IPOs narrates to the court the outcome of their investigation or enquiries or what they discovered in the course of their duty, they must have discovered or recovered some pieces of evidence vital to the commission of the crime which courts normally consider in arriving at just decision one way or the other, their evidence is not and can never be considered as hearsay evidence having regards to sections 44, 48 and 49 of the Evidence Act 2011. It was the argument of the learned defence counsel that the Exhibit A and B were not issue by any Government pathologist serving either with Federal Government or State Government Hospital. From the substance of the objection of the learned defence counsel, he is not challenging the qualification of the medical doctor who sign the medical report in other word he is not saying the doctor who sign the medical report is not specially skill in medical science, but that the Page 19 of 23