defendant as one of the robbers who robbed us . There were other pol icemen that were there that day. Qtn : Apart from the police officers there, it was only the 2 nd defendant that was the suspect there when you went to identify him, is that correct? Ans: It is correct. I deliberately reproduced PW l "s ev idence which was elicited under cross examination because of the issue of identification of the robbers that robbed her and her sisters. More so, the PW 1 appears to be the star witness of the prosecution . From both her evidence in chief and her evidence under cross - examination, she was consistent that she identified the 1st defendant as one of the robbers that attacked her in the night of 19/5/ l 6. Juxtaposing the PWl ' s evidence with those of PW2 and PW3 , I found that indeed there was a robbery attack against them in the night of 19/5/16. The fact was not contradicted neither was it challenged during trial. It is trite that facts not challenged are taken as established See the case of Musa .v. State (2018) 13 NWLR (pt.1636) 307 @314 - 3 18. I therefore hold that there was armed robbery attack on the PW 1 and her sisters. This fact was established by the pro~;ecution . The question now is : Who were the robbers? There is no doubt that P\V 1, PW2 and PW3 were the victims and of course eye witnesses of the robbery . They pointed at the defendants as participants in the robbery. The PWl stated that she was able to identify the defendants, particularly the 1st defendant whom she claimed to have known before the robbery incident with aid of the light from the torchlight used by the robbers during the operation. This fact was corroborated by PW2 under cross - examination where she said that PW 1 told her_she recognized one of the robbers who used to buy tom - tom and cigarettes from her store. Again PW3 testified that PWI told them after the attack and departure or escape of the robbers that she recognized two of the robbers . She testified that she knows the 1st defendant before the incident because he was always buying cigarettes and tom - tom from their shop. PW4, the IPO, testified and tendered the confessional statement. He stated that after their investigation, they found th~t the robbers used an object and not a gun to carry out the robbery that night. The; 2 nd defendant ' s extra judicial statement was also tendered through him. Under i cross - examination, counsel for t* 20