-, V _/ I ' identification of the defendants by Pwl after being _told by vigilante men that the defendants were the ones caught with her stolen drivers licence left much to be desire and is not acceptable. There is doubt in the mind of this court that the Pwl would not ordinarily have identified the . r defendants if she was not earlier told that they were the people caught ' ; with her drivers licence. The need for identification in cases where unfamiliar person are alleged to have participated · in crimes of this nature is explained in the case of BALOGUN V. A. G. -OGUN STATE (2202) 6 NWLR (pt 763) 512. The learned prosecution counsel seems to have appreciated the fact of improper mode of identification or lack of identification of the defendants by the Pwl in course of investigation of this case and did not make issue of it in course of her submission in this case . It is even noted that without cross - examination of the Pwl by M. C. Ezeh Esq . of counsel to the 1st defendant in that respect the Pwl would not be said that she identified the defen~ants. In th: absence of eye witness evidence against the defendants, the learned prosecution counsel as seen from her submissions anchored her case substantially on the alleged confessional statements of the· defend~nts and made copious submissions thereto. The prosecution relied on the alleged confessional statement made st on 10/02/2015 by the 1 defendant Ifeanyi Uzor to SARS Unit Onitsha J tendered on 27/9/2016 as Exhibit G and the alleged confessional nd statement made by the 2 defendant on 10/2/2015 tendered on 27/9/2016 as Exhibit H also made to SARS Unit Onitsha. 11 · I