6. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - MURDER CASES: Whether the failure to tender in evidence the instrument used for committing the offence of murder is not fatal to the case of the prosecution "Let me say also that in murder cases, the failure to tender in evidence the instrument used for committing the offence of murder i.e. the gun in this instance or failure to take the exhibit for forensic analysis is not fatal to the case of the prosecution or sufficient to dislodge the case of the prosecution that there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt. " Per FASANMI, J.C.A. (Pp. 19-20, paras. G-A) (...read in context) 7. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - ORDER 15 OF THE HIGH COURT OF APPEAL ACT: Provisions of Order 15 of the Court of Appeal Act "Order 15 of the Court of Appeal Act empowers this Court to make an order on such terms as the Court thinks just, to ensure the determination of the merits of the real question in controversy between the parties. The omission of the trial Judge to conduct trial within trial with a view to determining the voluntariness of Exhibits B does not vitiate the conviction as contended by the Appellant's Counsel. The Court of Appeal even though cannot hold a trial within trial as the trial court could have done, yet where there are sufficient materials before the Court of Appeal, it can determine the voluntariness or otherwise of a confessional statement based on the evidence on record. See the case of GEORGE V. THE STATE (2009) 1 N.W.L.R Part 1122 page 325 at 350 paras G-H. Exhibit B had been tested under the (6) six questions that a Judge should ask himself and consider before deciding on the voluntariness and I am satisfied that the confessional statement was voluntary and therefore admissible." Per FASANMI, J.C.A. (Pp. 20-21, paras. G-D) (...read in context) 8. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - RETRACTION OF A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: Whether a retraction from a confessional statement by an accused does not ipso facto render it inadmissible in evidence "Retraction from a confessional state by an accused person of having made such a statement does not ipso facto render it inadmissible in evidence and in this respect a confession contained in a statement made to the Policies not to be treated differently from any other confession. See BATURE V. THE STATE (1994) 1 N.W.L.R part 320 at 267; SHITTU V. THE STATE (1990) 1 ALL N.L.R at 228; EGHOGHONOMEVS