8 ahead to tender them as exhibits before the Court. The fact that the P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not state that they made this recovery in their extra judicial statements which were made when the incident was very fresh i_ n their memory demonstrates that it cannot be true that such recovery was made. Apart from this, I have considered the stage the P.W.1 and P.W.2 stated that they were robbed following the gun shots in their evidence before the Court and when the machete cut injury was inflicted on the 1st defendant. In the evidence of the witnesses , they claimed that they were inside the room with one of the robbers when the gun shots were released and the other robbers entered their room and robbed them of the sum of N120,000.00. They testified also that the machete cut was inflicted on the D.W.1 outside the room . However, the P.W.1 in his statement to the Police which is Exhibit "A" alleged that when they were struggling in his wife 's room , the robbers outside fired two gun shots in the air and Chukwudum rushed into his room and robbed him of the sum of N120 ,000.00 , but he gave the one he was struggling with machete cut on his head : He claimed also at the same time that after releasing th~ shots, the robbers outside ran away. The P.W.2 in her statement to the Police wh ich is Exhibit "B" alleged that 3 robbers entered her room . One of the robbers walked towards her pointing touch light on her face and slapped her while the other two went to their cupboard and removed the sum of N120,000.00. At this juncture, her husband held one of them and as they were struggling he gave him machete cut. The robber called for the assistance of the others who fired two gun shots outside and this enabled the robber to escape because her husband became afraid . It is clear that there are serious discrepancies on the crucial point between the extra judicial statements of the witnesses made after the incident which are Exhibits "A" and "B". Beside this, the statements of the witnesses do not flow in sequence with their testimony in Court and they contained contradictions in detail. Again , 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. The benefit of doubt of a discrepancy : in the prosecution's case in material points should be resolved in favour of the defendants. .JU~.,. ~ ,e, SEE: GABRIEL VS. STATE (1989) 5 NWLR (PT. 122) 457 . , -1 ~llff 1111:i~ . I I 1/ I 1/ I I