:;," ! ! _?. ' 18 J f I in their house was going on , the Court cannot speculate that they were observing them . Besides, since their room was very dark when the robbers came , I don't think they could observe them in the darkness as to be able to identify the defendants as being among the robbers who robbed them . As a matter of fact, although the P.W .1 and P.W .2 had an opportunity to observe the robbers closely but the circumstance in which they as eye-witnesses i's aw the robbers is not akin to relaxation mood to be able to identify any of them and th·e length of time was very brief. It is therefore clear to me that the P.W .1 and P.W .2 due to the time and circumstances did not utilize the full opportunity to observe the features of any of the three robbers who robbed them as to be able to identify the defendants. I find the evidence of the P.W .1 and P.W .2 to the effect that they observed the defendants during the robbery incident and were able to identify them unreliable and unsafe. The implication is that the P.W .1 and P.W .2 did not adduce any direct evidence linking the defendants with the commission of the offence of robbery . Accordingly , it is my finding that the P.W .1 and P.W .2 did not see or identify the defendants as being among the robbers that robbed them in that fateful early morning . ~ ~.fa: ~ t!J ~~ ~ l -~ However, it is ,in evidence that the P.W .1 during the robbery operation confronted one of the robbers and engaged him in a fight. It is also the evidence of the P.W .1 and P.W .2 that in the process , the robber was inflicted with machete cuts. The witnesses st also testified that the 1 defendant was arrested that morning by the Vigilante men with fresh machete cut wounds where they identified him . The P.W .3 corroborated the evidence of the P.W .1 and P.W .2 when he testified that when they went to Otolo Police Station to get the defendants, he saw the 1st defendant with a big plaster of wound on his head. I am of the opinion that the evidence are circumstantial evidence pointing to the fact that the 1st defendant was the robber the P.W .1 engaged in a fight and gave machete cut several times on his head . This evidence to my mind if not contradicted is enough to reach the conclusion that the 1st defendant was among the robbers that went to the residence of e P.W .1 and P.W .2. Exhibit "C" w~ich is said to be the statement of the 1st -~ ~ .~ efendant, he claimed that he conspired with the 2 nd defendant "": ~ :,." and one lzuchukwu Okeke to rob the P.W .1. In his alleged 2 nd "-statement which is Exhibit "C 1" , he claimed that lzuchukwu Okeke ~ ~ did not join them in the operation but it was the 2 nd defendant that 0 ,· I r.