"A defence counsel should know when it is imperative that an accused person should give evidence in the witness box and explain certain aspects of the case which are exclusively within his knowledge: it is improper in such a situation to rest the clefence on the case for the prosec ution . Thi s improper procedure denies the trial court of hearing the story of the accused and making a choice between accepting his story or that of the prosecution. A piece of evidence which is either unchallenged or uncontradicted will be accepted as proof of a fact it seeks to establish". 1 See also Agngua .v. State, supra @~ 291 - 294. Flowing from the above, PWI nd testified that the 2 defendant was among the robbers that attacked her and her siblings. She gave evidence of the role the 2 nd defendant played and how she came to identify him . Subsequently, she admitted that she was not able to describe the nd 2 defendant to the police because she could not identify him . She further admitted st that i: was the I defendant that gave the police the description of the 2 nd defendant. She also adm itted that before the robbery incident she did not know the nd 2 defendant. Lastly, she admitted that it was the l st defendant that informed the nd poli~e that the 2 defe :1dant particip.:1ted in the robbery. Both PW2 and PW3 who were eye witnesses adduced evi dence that they did not see or identify the 2 nd defendant on the day of the robbery. The evidence of PWl. is contradictory on the identity of the 2 nd defendant. In one breath she stated that she saw the 2 nd defendant on the scene of the crime with the a id of a torch, in another breath , she admitted tha~ the reason she could not give the description of the 2 nd defendant to the police was because she could not identify him that day. It is settled that whenever the case against an accused depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of the identification of the accused, and the defence aileges that the identification was mistaken, the court must closely examine the evid~nce and in acting on it must view it with caution so that any real weakness discovered about it must lead to giving the accused the benefit of doubt. See the case of Adamu .v . State (2017) 7 NWI..,R (pt.1565) 459 @487 . In the instant case, desp ite the fact that the 2 nd defendant decided to rest his case on the prosecution ' s case, there is doubt cast on his identity and participation in that operation. I must say that he took a calculated risk and it paid off for him . The same cannot be said of the 1st defendant. I believe he planned and participated in 26