7 money handed to him were taken away by PW1. Without sitting down to reconcile records, PW1 reported the matter to the church authorities and the matter was eventually reported to the E.F.c.c. He was arrested and taken to the E.F.C.C. office in Port Harcourt where he made a statement to PW2 who was asking him questions and wrote as he answered him through which process.he made two statements, TWT 1 and TWT 2. PW2 advised him to admit he is owing so that he coutd be paying installments on their office. He made payments about seven times and each time he did, he was given something to write and he wrote "Tvvr3"-"TWT6 ". Throughout his stay in E.F.c.c. custody there was no reconciliation of accounts with the three persons he received money from. Address Defence counsel L.u. ovwromoh Esq submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the Defendant beyond reasonable doubt. He reminded the court of the ruling on the admissibility of statements of the Defendants reserved and pointed out that the PW2 did not .on.lrd" his evidence He submitted . that even if the court admits the statements, 'TWTI'-"TWT6", they should be ignored as pw2 did not conclude his evidence since he did not come back for cross examination. O-n the ingredients of stealing, he relied on Chianugo Vs. State (2001lFWLR{pt.