In terms of admissibility of Exhibit B, S. 46 of the Evidence Act 2011 is apt and provides adequately for the situation at hand. The infant Master Blessing peter Asuquo had earlier testified in the first court. He was also cross examination before A. E. Archibong J. The proceedings is still between the same parties ie the state against the Appellant. Exhibit B cannot therefore be described as hearsay evidence. It was a direct evidence obtained during examination in chief and cross examination of the witnesses. Hearsay evidence is an evidence which does not derive its value solely from the credit given to the witness himself, but which rests also, in part, on the veracity and competence of some other person. Thus, where a third party relates a story to another as proof of the contents of a statement, such story is hearsay. Judicial service Committee vs. Omo (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt.157) 407 CA. Evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person who is not himself called as a witness may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. It is not hearsay and admissible when it is proposed to establish by evidence not the truth of the statement but the fact that it was said. Kala vs. Potiskum (1998) 3 NWLR (pt.540) 1 SC. The learned Appellant's counsel had argued that the Respondent did not strictly conform with the provisions of S. 295 (1) and (3). The issues of date complained about cannot vitiate, the admissibility of Exhibit B. It conformed substantially with the provisions of that section. The A.C.R. of the court certified Exhibit B in his usual line of duty and within his job description. The Appellant did not object to the tendering of this Exhibit and therefore estopped from doing so on appeal. Chief Bruno Vs. Chief Oko Udo Ekpe (supra) Moreso, the provisions of S.295 (1) and (3) were substantially adhered to. The Appellant also argued that, the evidence of PW3 Investigating Police Officer was hearsay evidence. It appears the learned Appellant's counsel does not appreciate fully the job description of an Investigating Police Officer. He just investigates crimes. Invariably an Investigating Police Officer is hardly ever at the crime scene. His investigation comes after the crime had been committed. An Investigating Police Officer obtains statements from accused persons and witnesses alike. He thereafter testifies in court giving a synopsis of what he did during the investigation. He tenders the statements of both