/ l 16 I learned counsel for the defendants in the course of his cross examination of the P.W.1 put it to him that he recognised nobody at all and only ceased the opportunity of seeing arrested persons to claim that they were the ones that robbed him . The answer of the P.W.1 that ensued is very revealing . The witness testified as follows :"Azuka Nwokoro came to my his mask and facing cap he pointed torch-light to his face name Azuka Nwokoro so you this thing." house, I removed was putting on; I and called out his are the one doing It is apparent that it was in the course of the cross examination of the P.W .1 that he realised that there is no way he could see the face of the man that entered their room when the place was very dark and they were fighting . Hence he tried to ameliorate the situation by testifying that he po inted the touch -light to the man 's face after removing his mask and face cap and realised that it was Azuka Nwokoro. It should be appreciated that his evidence that when he removed the face cap , he called the man by his name or the second version under cross examination are not contained in Exhibit "A" which is his statement to the Police made on the day of the incident when the matter was very fresh in his memory. The P.W.2 as I said earlier stated in her evidence that her husband removed the thing the person used in covering his face and saw that it was Azuka and called him by his name. However, it is surprising that such fact was not stated in her statement to the Police which is Exhibit "B'' and which was made just four days after the incident. The P.W.2 who testified that it was her husband that saw the face of one of the robbers , all of a sudden claimed that the defendants were the people he saw that day. But in her statement which is Exhibit "B" , she stated that the robber whom they later discovered to be Azuka escaped with a machete cut which her husband gave him on the head . This shows that they do not know that the person who robbed them was Azuka . It was when they ~ w Azuka with fr~sh machete cut already arrested by Vigilante ~ n that they presumed he will be the person that robbed them in eir house. t't ::::} part from this, it is not clear in the evidence of the P.W.2 at the nd __ point she saw the 2 defendant. Was it inside her room or when ~ the people were aqout to jump the fence? By the evidence of the 0