in view of the decision in Musa _,; _ State, supra @ 318? Certainl y there were. Firstly, his affirmation in exhibit " DI " wherein he impliedly admitted making exhibit P 1. He admitted expressly t hat exhibit "D l " represented what he told the police at SARS Awkuzu to record . In the said exhibit, he admitted telling the police that he was the person that robbed Chinenye Ileagu (ie PW 1). He went further to state that he mentioned Chijioke (2 nd defendant) who is his tenant. In his evidence, he stated that he knows the 2 nd defendant and the 2 nd defendant is his tenant. He further testified that hi~ pleaded with the police to leave the 2 nd defendant because he is his tenar t. Secondly, the PW I and PW2 positively st identified the 1 defendant as one of the robbers that attacked them . They gave uncontradicted evidence that they know the 1st defendant before the robbery st incident. The 1 defendant himself admitted knowing the PWl and being her customer before the robbery . It is trite that in proving the idemity of an accused person , the court should consider: (a) Circumstances in which the ey,:! witness saw the accused . (b) The length of time the witness saw the accused . (c) The light conditions . ( d) The opportunity of close observ ation . (e) The previous contact between the parties. See the case of Adekoya .v. State (20 l 7) 7 NWLR (pt.1565) 343 @ 358 . st In the instant case, it is in evidence Vrnt the 1 defendant, particularly, had known the PWI and her sisters before the robbery; the PW I testified that she flashed her torchlight at the robbers before it was snatched from her. She saw the face of the 1st defendant and the robb~rs took her into all the hidden places she kept her money and even spent some time to take some drinks. Therefore, the 1st defendant was positively identified by PW 1. I have no doubt in my mind that PW I visually and positively identified the 1st defendant at the scene of the crime. I believe her. It is against the above that I conclud1~ that there are other ascertained and proved facts that corroborated exhibit "Pl". See the case of Lawal .v. State (2016) 14 NWLR (pt.1531) 69@ 89. It is important to point out that exhibit P3 (ie police crime diary) has become irrelevant in view of exhibit PI , "DI " and of course, the oral evidence of th1 ? 5/c>J 24