., . •t" ! t . j • i 14 touch light that enabled the P.W.1 and P.W.2 to realise that it was a man that entered their house, I don't think it will be logical to say that the P.W.1 kept the touch light pointed on the face of the person in the course of their fight and so was able to realise that the person was Azuka . Be that as it ry,ay , by calling the man Azuka presupposes that the P.W .1 knows Azuka before the incident and so was able to recognise him . It should be borne in mind that recognition may be more reliable than identification of a stranger; but even when the witness is purporting to recognise someone whom he knows; the jury should be directed that mistakes in recognition of close relatives and friends are sometimes made. SEE : .IKEMSON VS . STATE (1989) 3 NWLR (PT. 110) 455. NDIDI VS . STATE (2007) 13 NWLR (PT. 1052) 633 . Where the identity of the defendants crops up in a case , the Court must not only warn itself but must meticulously examine the evidence proffered to see whether there are any weakness capable of endangering or rendering worthless any contention that the prosecution witnesses had enough time to observe the defendants . If the quality of the identification evidence is good and remains good at the close of the defendants' case , the danger of a mistaken identification is lessened but the poorer the quality the greater the danger. SEE : NDIDI VS . STATE (Supra) . It is now settled principle of law that to ascribe any value to the evidence of an eye witness regarding identification of a criminal , the courts in guarding against cases of mistaken identity must meticulously consider the following issues:- L. j 1. The circumstances defendant. in which the eye-witness saw the 2. The length of time the witness saw the subject or defendant. 3. The lighting conditions . c::,