Counsel further argued that the extra judicial statement of the defendant having fell short of the judicial lest and not made in accordance with the provision of Section 17(2) of the ACJL 2019 of Sokoto state the statement are inadmissible - Babatunde Afolabi V. State (2021) LPRLR 53501. Counsel contended that by the provision of Section 83 (1) (a) and (b) of the Evidence Act 2011 as amended, the police officer through whom the statement of the defendant were tendered is incompetent to tender them because he was not the maker he therefore urge this court not to ascribe any probative value to them. - Belore V. AHmed (2013) 8 NWLR PT 1355 P 60. - Olanify Ofimi V. State (2017) LPELR 42768. Learned defence counsel argued that the defendant called 4 witnesses in their defence and whose evidence was not contradicted. Counsel finally submitted that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as required law he urge this cannot to discharge and acquit the defendants. Reacting to the submission of the defence counsel the prosecution submitted that based on the evidence led the prosecution has without any equivocation proved its case against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. This is because according to the prosecution, the defendant confessed to the commission of the crimes in their confessional statement already admitted on evidence, and that confession is the best evidence to prove a crime. - Saliu V. State (2014) ALL FWLR PT 743 P 2051 at 2069. - Hassan V. State (2001) 6 NWLR PT 709 P 286. Page 4 of 13