beyond reasonable doubt and urged the court to convict and sentence the defendant. Also defence counsel reply to the response of the learned prosecuting counsel; a- That there is material inconsistency in the prosecution’s piece of evidence. b- The confessional statement (Exhibit A and A1) was made by Wadata Dan-umma and not the defendant, hence it is inadmissible against the defendant who has not made the statement. c- Due process was not followed by the officers in obtaining the alleged confessional statement. Hence the voluntariness of the statement is questionable. Learned defence counsel submitted that the defendant denied committing the offence in his evidence before this court, also defendant brought to the court attention ------ material inconsistency in the prosecution case as to the identify of the actual offender because the prosecution has not established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is the same as Wadata Sahabi and Wadata Dan Umma counsel further submitted that both PW3 and PW5 confirmed that the defendant has no other name and that Wadata Sahabi is never the same as Wadata Dan Umma. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution argues that, the retraction of the statement by the defendant does not render the statement inadmissible, but prosecution has not joined issues on the Page 10 of 22