(6) Is it consistent with other facts, which have been ascertained and have been proved? It is consistent with the evidence of P.W1, P.W2 and P.W3 on the record of proceedings. 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. P.W4, I.P.O in this case at page 18 lines 2-4 gave an explanation as to why he did not produce the gun. He said 'The scene of crime was visited by me led by Inspector Kolawole and a dane gun was recovered which the accused used in firing the deceased. The dane gun is still in the exhibit room as I do not know the registration number since the original case file is missing." I see him as a credible witness for speaking the truth and this explains why the gun was not tendered in Court. On the issue of the voluntariness of the confessional statement i.e. exhibit B Appellant's Counsel did not object at the stage of tendering the statement. The appropriate stage to raise an objection to a confessional statement is when it is about to be tendered in evidence especially where the accused person is represented by Counsel and it is assumed that he ought to know what to do at each stage of proceeding. The retraction was made when the Appellant was testifying at the trial Court. Any belated denial of the voluntariness of a confessional statement or its retraction is a mere after thought. See: NWACHUKWU V. STATE (2004) 17 N.W.L.R Part 902 at 262; USUANG V. STATE (2009) 1 ALL F.W.L.R pg 1203 paras C-D 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. The Court is unable to find any contradiction in the evidence of P.W2 and P.W4 as alleged by the Appellant's Counsel as a court of law is enjoined to consider the total package of the defence and not to