Defence counsel further submitted that considering the time when the alleged robbery took place which was between 7:30pm – 8:00pm during which there was a limited visibility, it will be doubtful if the victim was able to see his assailant clearly, and consequent upon the foregoing submission, urge this court to warn itself of the dangers of relying on the evidence of the witness because at that time, there was low visibility. - Ndidi V. State (2007) 13 NWLR PT 1052 P 633 at 653. - R. Turnbull 63 CR. App P. 132. - Adamu V. State (2013) LPELR 20770. He submitted further that identification parade was necessary because PW1 did not know the 1st defendant before the alleged robbery incident and had very short time to observe the features of the defendant coupled with the low visibility because of the darkness. - Olanipekun V. State (2016) 13 NWLR Pt 1528 P 100. - Martina V. State (1997) 1 NWLR Pt 481 P 355. - Ebenezer V. State (2020) 8 NWLR Pt 1727 P 573. Defence counsel contended that there was material contradiction in the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 as while PW1 and PW2 testified to the fact that they reported the robbery incident at Kwannawa Police Station, the evidence of PW3 shows that he heard about the incident for the first time when the Manager of Blue Star Hotel called him. He then concluded by saying that their evidence is doubtful and that the doubt should be resolved in favour of the defendant. - Danladi V. State (2019) 16 NWLR Pt 1698 P 342 at 394. Page 5 of 14