defendant tendered the police crime diary through the PW4 d · .m evidence . . an same was received as exhibit P3. PW4 insisted that PWl mentioned( the name of the 1st d . :-. d t h · , e1en an w o m tum nd revealed the name of the 2 defimdant. PW4 further stated that he did the preliminary investigation before the case was transferred to SARS AwkUzu for conclusion of the investigation. In all the evidence of PWl, which was corroborated by other defence witnesses, it st was maintained that the 1 defendant was at the scene of the crime. The 1st defendant himself testifying as DWI :admitted that he knows the PWl ' s family and he knows the complainant. He admiitted signing exhibit Pl when he was told it would assist in facilitating his relea\se on bail. However, the police officer who wrote the extra judicial statement \did not write what he told him to write. Essentially, he told the police officer \that he did not participate in the robbery. Due to the significance of the confessiornU statement, I am constrained to reproduce it here. It was made on the 30/5/16, th~ same day the 1st defendant admitted he was arrested. He stated, shorn of the preli)minary information and cautionary words, as follows : "I am of the above address and\I reside same (sic) I know the complainant in this case as well as other fan~ily members. They are my customers as I usually go to their shop to buy !cigarettes and other items. It is truth (sic) that I and two other (sic) went to t\he complainant's house/store to rob them of their cash and other valuables. lwe are only three not four as claimed by the complainant. The people invol✓red are one Chijioke Nwoye of same address and Ifeanyi Okafor of same ad~lress. The money we got was shared equally at N35,000:00 (Thirty Five Tl,~ousand Naira only) each. The other items which includes phones, single~s and others were taking (sic) by Ifeanyi Okafor who has fled to Enugu State. We did not use gun but a ply wood that is short in size. After the opera\tion, we threw it into the Uruokwe primary school as we were·running homf'. Now the 1st defendant (DWI) in his ievidence in chief stated that when he was taken to SARS Awkuzu, he was ilnterrogated. He admitted making another statement. According to him, he told tile men of SARS that: ~ 21