not produced. See ONWUJUBA VS OBIENU (1991) 4 NWLR (PR. 183) 16 SC; OLUSANYA VS OSINLEYE (2013) 12 NWLR (PT. 1367) 148; and SHODIYA VS THE STATE (2013) 14 NWLR (PT. 1373) 147 where Alagoa JSC quoted the provisions of Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act, that the Court may presume evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. While it is the law that the prosecution is not bound to call a particular witness where his case can otherwise be proved, See ARCHIBONG VS THE STATE (2006) 14 NWLR (PT. 1000); STATE VS OLATUNJI (2003) 14 NWLR (PT. 839) 138; SHURUMO VS THE STATE (2010) 12 SCNJ 47, its failure to adduce evidence at its disposal which it is supposed to adduce amounts to withholding of ??evidence and calls for invocation of Section 167 (d) see EMEKA VS CHUBA IKPEAZU & ORS (2017) LPELR - 41920 (SC) where Ogunbiyi JSC, referring to BUHARI VS OBASANJO per Belgore JSC as he then was held that failure to produce the letter in question meant either that the letter did not exist or if existed, and not produced, it could be presumed that if produced, its contents would not have supported the Appellant's case. ?The purport of the Rule in Section 167 (d) of the Evidence Act is to permit the Court to presume that a Party who withholds evidence which could be but was not produced, would if produced, be unfavourable to or against him. Such a Party withholds the evidence at his peril. A party in civil action in possession of material evidence in support of pleaded facts, and is in criminal trials, the prosecution in possession of material evidence, who withholds that evidence which could be but was not produced, does so at his peril. Failure to adduce vital evidence at a Party's disposal which he is supposed to adduce amounts to withholding evidence and would raise a presumption that if produced, the evidence would be unfavourable to him. 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 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