regarded as legitimate and natural reaction to such state of things. Egbe Nkanu v. The State (1980) 3 - 4 SC 1; Effiong Udofia v. The State (1981) 11 - 12 SC 49; M.A. Sanusi v. The State (1984) 10 SC 166; Ejinima v. The State (1991) 7 SCNJ (pt. II) 318)." Per YAKUBU,J.C.A. (P.28,paras.A-C) (...read in context) 8. COURT - DUTY OF COURT: Whether the court is duty bound to test the truth of an accused person's confessional statement and examine it with respect to other evidence led before it "Therefore, a trial court faced with a situation such as was thrown up in the present case, has the duty of testing the truth of the confessional statement by examining it with respect to other credible evidence led before it and determine whether: (i) There is anything (evidence) outside the confession to show that it is true; (ii) It is corroborated; (iii) The facts in it are true as far as can be tested; (iv) The accused person had the opportunity of committing the crime; (v) The accused person's confession is possible; (vi) The confession is consistent with other facts ascertained and established. Jimoh Yusuf v. The State (1976) 6 SC 167; Alarape v. The State (2001) FWLR (pt. 41) 1872; (2001) 5 NWLR (pt. 705) 79; Akpa v. The State (2007) 2 NWLR (pt.1019) 500. The six point tests above listed are the ones stipulated in R. v. Sykes (supra) and in Nsofor v. The State (supra), his Lordship, Oguntade JSC., said that: "If the confessional statement passes these tests satisfactorily, a conviction founded on it is invariably upheld unless other grounds of objection exists. If the confessional statement fails to pass the tests, no conviction can properly be founded on it and if any is founded on it, on appeal, it will be hard to sustain." Per YAKUBU,J.C.A. (Pp.29-30,paras.G-F) (...read in context) 9. APPEAL - INTERFERENCE WITH THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE OF A LOWER COURT: Under circumstances will an appellate court interfere with the evaluation of evidence of a lower court "The law is that when there is a complaint that the trial court did not evaluate evidence properly and make findings based on the evidence placed before him, the appellate court, is in as good a position as the trial court to do its own evaluation of the evidence laid before the court. And if the appellate court finds that there are inadequacies on the part of the trial court in the evaluation of evidence before it, the former has a duty to examine the conclusions and inferences drawn by the latter and then do its own re-evaluation of the evidence in order to come to its judgment, to see that justice is done. Atolagbe v. Shorun (1985) 1 NWLR (pt. 2) 360; Narumai & Sons Nig Ltd. v. Niger Benue Transport Co. Ltd (1989) 2 NWLR (pt.106) 730; Durugo v. The State (1992) 7 NWLR (pt. 255) 525 at 535; Adegboyega Ibikunle v. The