34 Nothing can be further away from what was therein decided. The decision is quite diametrical to the Counsel???s argument. It is precisely against him and unequivocally in favour of the Appellant. This is what the Court held at the said paragraphs F - G at page 679 of the report: ???I think the tendering of the accused???s statement made to the Police (considered to be confessional) is very vital, necessary and fundamental in grounding a conviction otherwise the conviction is defective and can be quashed and any sentence premised upon can equally be set aside??????. ???It is crystal clear that this authority does not support the Respondent but only helps the case of the Appellant. It will therefore by flying on the face of the above decision to contend that the none-tendering of the statement is not fatal. On the whole, all said and done, the sum effect of all these is that the issue is resolved in favour of the Appellant against the Respondent. Resultantly, the appeal has merit and it is accordingly allowed. Consequentially, the conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the lower Court in its Judgment 35 of 21/12/2016 are hereby set aside. In their stead, the Appellant is discharged and acquitted. ZAINAB ADAMU BULKACHUWA J.C.A.:I have read before now the draft of the judgment just delivered by my Learned brother A. A. Wambai, JCA. I also agree with the conclusion reached therein that the non-tendering of the appellant first statement made at the Bamaina Police Station was fatal to the prosecution case. See Section 167 (d) Evidence Act 2010.People of Lagos State v. Umaru 2014 ALL FWLR (Part 737) 652.