: ( f j, !~ . I l I { j • 17 ,' { ,' P.W.1 and P.W .2, it was very dark and so there is no way the P.W .2 could see the 2nd defendant during the robbery operation . Again , Exhibit "B" which is the extra-judicial statement of the P.W.2 to the Police and which was made four days after the incident did not suggest that the P.W .2 saw the 2nd defendant on that day. It could be inferred that it was because the injured robber was calling out Chukwudum for help according to the P.W .1 and P.W.2 that made them to presume that it was the 2nd defendant that was being referred to . The evidence that the 1st defendant mentioned the name Chukwudum in the course of the robbery without more is not enough to reach the conclusion that the 2nd defendant was the person being referred to and so was involved in the robbery especially when the P .W .1 did not adduce it in evidence . Although , the P.W .1 stated it in his extra judicial statement but he omitted to adduce it in evidence . Besides, there is discrepancy at the stage nd where the 1st defendant allegedly mentioned the name of the 2 defendant in the statements of the witnesses as to be relied upon by any court . It is seen that even on this point there are material discrepancies between the previous written statements of the P.W .1 and P.W .2 and their subsequent oral testimony and this affects their credibility . I ; / I 1 SEE : GABRIEL VS . STATE (Supra) . OKEREKE VS . STATE (Supra) . "'- !d It appears that the statements of the P.W.1 and P.W .2 which were made after the arrest of the defendants as I pointed out earlier were written in such a way as to link the defendants to the crime. For an instance, the P.W.1 in his testimony before the Court did not mention the 2nd defendant but referred to the 2nd robber who entered their roor,-:t as one person . In his statement to the Police, he did not mention the 2nd defendant, but in the course of referring to the 2nd robber -he stated that he is called Chukwudum . It is interesting that at the time of making the statements by the P.W.1 nd P.W.2, the defendants who are Azuka Nwokoro and ~ hukwudum Obiagazie had been arrested . ;.. l .~ ., J ·t;IJ . " 4-l J,,.. 2 · - ~bove all, there is no evidence that the P.W.1 and P.W.2 were observing the robbers when they stormed their house and stole their money and when one of them was fighting with the P.W. 1. As long as the witn~sses were not led to testify that they observed the nd robbers and particularly the 2 defendant as the robbery operation