:i (;' I · two gun shots released by the robbers, they would naturally understand that the robbers were armed. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants, where the robbers were armed to the k'nowledge of the P.W.1, will he attack them with a mere machete? I don't think so. The fact that the P.W.1 summoned enough courage to attack three armed robbers with a machete presu.pposes that he was aware that the robbers were not armed. This is more logical and accords with common ~ense. And I ask myself, if the robbers were armed as the P.Wi1 and P.W.2 want the Court to believe, wouldn't they at this stage see the gun? I think the P.W.1 and P.W.2 would have been able to see the gun when they followed the robbers up to the wall and saw them jump through the wall fence. The P.W.2 in her evidence in chief alleged that when the robbers ran away, they recovered their axe, 2 bullets w·rapped in handkerchief and slip-ass. This evidence as I said earlier was meant to demonstrate that the robbers were armed . But the P.W.1 did not adduce it in his evidence in chief. It was under cross examination that he testified that he went to the Police with the mask, the face cap and bullet and handed them over to the Poli.ce . However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants in his final written address, the witnesses did not state this fact in their statements to the Police. It should be borne in mind that the learned counsel for the defendants in the course of his cross examination of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 tendered their extra judicial statements to the Police and they were admitted as Exhibits "A" and "8'' . The extra judicial statement of a witness is not legal evidence and cannot be used at the trial for any purpose whatsoever, including for the purpose of contradicting the witness unless the extra-judicial statement Is tendered and admitted in evidence at the trial as an exhibit. SEE: EDOHO VS. STATE (2004) 5 NWLR (PT. 865) 17. In the instant case, the extra-judicial statements of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 having been admitted in evidence constituted legal evidence which I will be right to act upon . It will be recalled that the P.W.1 made his· statement on the day of the incident. I am of the opinion that if th~ mask, facing cap, bullet and axe were recovered from the scene, the P.W.1 and P.W.2 would have stated it in their statement to the ·Police when the facts were fresh in their memory. !he Police on their part would have entered the recovery of the items in their Investigation Report which is Exhibit ''E" and adduced them in evidence through the P.W.3 who will then go