adduce amounts to withholding evidence and would raise a presumption that if produced, the evidence would be unfavourable to him. 29 TSOKWA MOTORS NIG. LTD VS AWONIYI (1999) NWLR (PT. 586) 1999; TEWOGBADE VS AKANDE (1968) NMLR 404. Undoubtedly, the prosecution has a duty to tender any statement made by an accused person during the investigation of the crime with which the accused is charged whether or not it is in his favour. It is not only a damming statement of an accused person that should be tendered with glee by the prosecution. A favourable statement to the accused should not be left out in a bid to secure conviction by the prosecution at all cost. This is to avoid the invocation of Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act against the prosecution. See PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE VS UMARU (2014) 7 NWLR (PT. 1407) 584, and OGUDO VS THE STATE(Supra). However, before the presumption under the Section can operate, it must be shown and established that: (a) Such evidence exists; (b) That it could be produced; (c) That it has not been produced and; (d) That it has been withheld by the person who could produce it, as held in MUSA VS YERIMA (1997) 7 NWLR (PT. 511) 27 per Ogundare JSC. All the listed conditions are present in the case at 30 hand, the statement exists and was in prosecution???s case file; it could be produced; but was not produced; PW4 who could have produced it withheld it. Thus, the prosecution???s failure to produce the said statement squarely amounts to withholding of evidence.