ailD to be treated os unreliqble while the stqtement not regarded os evidence upon which o court oct. See olso Asenya is con V. State (1991) L1ELR 5745C, oladejo V. State (1987) 3 Nt4/tR (pt. 6t) P.364. f n the light of the obove outhorities and the inconsistent evidence of the Defendont as regord the octual ornount he purportedly sent to the colled mechonic, Def I hold the view thot so the endont did not tronsf er ony rnoney thot he f olsely obtoined f rom pW1 Otobor inclusive to produce ony truck. I0m soyi4g this without ony f ear tr8 TRUE CUFt {AMEV-:JJ..-ESg-.+.\ ;EFT|F "-lGX -G,--rr-.,r.r-.8 rATE -.,/.- - --S,E{ZlL\li _/ wAtrr /f-A- 0 cEDERA1 HIGH',COU!* to onybody Sunny 69 of contradicti