9 QKEREKE VS. STATE (1998) 3 NWLR (PT. 540) 75. All these suggest the inference that their evidence on this crucial point was not evidence of what they observed . Put bluntly) although the statements are not supposed to tally with their evidence with mathematical accuracy but their statem~nts are different version of the incidence from their testimony in Court. I must say that the statements of the witnesses and their evidence before the Court evince a premeditated and orchestrated plan to make out a case of armed robbery at all cost and not evidence of what transpired of which the witnesses observed . This can only explain the discrepancies disconnections and omissions on crucial points in their statements vis-a-vis their evidence before the Court. The P.W.1 and P.W.2 even as they testify before the Court cut out a picture of one who was not stating what he observed and hence the lack of coherence and sequence in and between their evidence and extra judicial statements made when the incident was very fresh in their memory. 1 Again ) considering the time when the incident occurred , I don't believe the P.W.1 and P.W.2 who claimed that they were struggling with the first robber that entered their house, that the gun shots they heard (if they were gun shots) were fired within their vicinity . Of course, the tenor of their entire evidence point irresistibly to that conclusion . It is a thing of common knowledge that the day is U:Sually very quiet and calm during the early hours when this incident was said to have occurred. It is also a thing of common knowledge that sound travels very fast during such period as a result of the quietness and calm nature of the environment. It is therefore not surprising that while the P.W.1 testified that two gun shots were released very close to the room, ~~he P.W.2 claimed that they were fired outside. Besides this, there ~ __ 7. s serious discrepancy at the stage the gun shots were allegedly ~ 4(' heard between the statements of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 made 1-- ~ X . when the incident was very fresh in their memory vis-a-vis their ~ ~ et., ~vi?ence befor~ the Court which w~re made two years after the .~ :-« ~ incident. The discrepancy to my mind suggests that the alleged " ...._ ._ gun shots were merely added to score a point. It should be borne 0 £... in mind that the prosecution is relying on the extra judicial statements of the defendants to prove that the defendants were armed during the robbery operation . The prosecution as such ---_) through the P.W.3 tendered the said extra judicial statements of Z O .[ l .! I I I: if