issue can conveniently dealt with the issue formulated by the defence counsel. That is:“Whether looking at the totality of the evidence adduced before this court, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the defendant.” In his adopted written address, defence counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to lead potent evidence to prove any of the ingredients of the offence with which the defendant was charged. In his further submission at paragraph 4.1.2 of the adopted written address, the defence counsel argued that the confessional statements of the defendant admitted as Exhibit A, A1, C and C1 which the prosecution seems to heavily relied on, is both laden with irregularities and the defendant has unequivocally denied ever making them as they were retracted by the defendant at the trial when he was giving evidence as DW1 thereby necessitating this court to carefully evaluate the purported confessional statements with a fine tooth comb. - Haruna V. AGF (2012) LPELR 7821. - Solola V. State (2005) UNWLR pt. 937 p. 460. - Alarape V. State (2001) 14 WRN P1. - Idowu V. State (2000) 7 SC pt. II p. 50. At paragraph 4.1.9, defence counsel submitted that since the defendant did not sign Exhibit ‘C1’ which is the English translated versions of the defendant’s statement at Sabon Birni Police Divisional Headquarters, and has retracted making the statement, the said English Page 4 of 19