22 SEE: AMALA VS. STATE (2004) 12 NWLR (PT. 888) 520. Consequently, the confession and admission of the 1st defendant of the offence of robbery is evidence against him alone. In my view therefore a lesser offence of robbery was made prima facie by lhe prosecution against the 1st defendant based on his confession which is Exhibit ":C" and the circumstantial evidence of the P.W .1, P.W .2 and P.W .3 which corroborated the confessional statement. 1 Having reached this conclusion , it is clear to me that Exhibit "C " was merely made to exonerate lzuchukwu Okeke from commission of the crime to justify his release by the Police . -... ,. ~ o. I ._J' I now come to the 2 nd defendant's confess ional statement which is Exhi bit "D1" . As I said earlier, the 2nd defendant's first extra judicial statement which is Exhibit "D" is not a confessional statement. This is so because the 2nd defendant in Exhibit "D" completely denied participating during the commission of the offence alleged against him . It was in Exhibit "0 1" that he confessed committing the offence of robbery with the 1st defendant. Now considering Exhibit "0 1 " in relation to the appl icable tests there is nothing out side the confessional statement to show that it is true on crucial point. No material facts on material point outside the 2 nd defendant's confessional statement which is Exhibit "0 1" to support its veracity . The refevant statements in Exhibit "0 1 " are not true in that there is no evidence to support the fact that the 2 nd defendant participated in the crime . However, the statement that lzuchukwu Okeke did not participate in the crime cannot be supported in view of the evidence of the P.W.1 under cross examination that he was one of the robbers . There is no independent evidence corroborating the confession of the 2nd defendant in Exhibit "0 1" on material point in that it could not be tested by the evidence of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 who are the only eye witnesses of the crime. There is no established fact on material point through evidence that could be ascertained and proved has been led by the prosecution whose duty it is to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The confession is not consistent with the fact that the 2nd defendant did not participate in the robbery which has been ascertained and proved . As a matter of fact, the 1st defendant in his evidence in Court maintained that the 2nd defendant did not participate in committing the offence but stated that it was lzuchukwu Okeke that joined him in committing the offence of robbery .