squad (SARS), Awkuzu for further investigation. That the police found that the 1st defendant used an object but not gun in the robbery. Under cross - examination, the PW4 stated that he investigated the case at the preliminary stage. That it was on the strength of the complaint lodged by PWl that a case ~f stealing was ent~red in the crime diary and he investigated same 1!\That the PW 1 informed the police that she can identify the defendants when she volunteered her statement. He stated that the 1st defendant did not deny the allegation when he was arrested and he was the person that mentioned the 2nd defendant as well as gave the number of the persons that cmnmitted the crime. PW4 admitted he would be surprised if it is shown on the minutes of his team leader that the defendants denied the allegations. That the stolen items were not recovered because it took some time before the defendants were arrested. He did not also recover the stick with which the defendants comqiitted the crime because st the 1 defendant told the police tha1t he threw away the stick when he was escaping. st Secondly, the 1 defendant could not identify the place where he threw away the stick. The he (PW4) could not have picked any stick since the original stick was thrown away by the 1st defendant. He ·admitted that at the Divisional Police level, the investigation was not concluded because it was an armed robbery matter. That the investigation was supposed to be concluded at SARS but is yet to be concluded. He admitted that th<:: 2 nd defendant was arrested based on the information contained in exhibit "P 1". That the complainant (PW 1) did not mention the name of the 2 nd defendant but she said that she knew the name of one of the robbers. He d(d not know that the author of exhibit "P 1" exonerated the 2nd defendant neither did he know the final outcome of police investigation of the case. That in obtaining the extra judicial Statement of the defendant, he (PW 4) adopted nd question and answer method. That he did not ask the 2 defendant where he (the 1st defendant) was. That there were two persons who share the name "Chijioke". The PWl immediately identified the 2 nd defendant as one of the persons that nd robbed her. He admitted discovering, in the course of his investigation, that the 2 nd defendant had a roommate and that the extra judicial Statement of the 2 defendant's roommate was not obtained because he was always accompanied by a nd lawyer. He admitted that all he km:w about the involvement. of the 2 defendant was as a result of what he was told. That he also found out du •• ng investigation that the 2nd defendant is a tenant to the 1st defendant. He maintained that he carried out ,--._ 7~