offence for which the accused is charged. See Patrick Joven and Ors. V. The State (1973) 5 SC 17. If an accused person does not object when his confessional statement is being tendered, the only reasonable conclusion is that it was made voluntarily. See Bello Shurumo V. the State (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt 1226) 73 wherein it was held that the failure to object the two confessional statements when they were tendered and admitted as exhibits was held as conclusive evidence that they were both made voluntarily. This is more so when a counsel stands by and allows exhibits to sail smoothly through without any objection. In the case at hand, the learned counsel sought and obtained the permission of the trial Court to confer with the appellant, when the prosecution sought to tender exhibit 'B' evidence. The counsel thereafter did not object to the admissibility of the confessional statement of his client which was admitted as Exhibit 'B'. In respect of exhibit 'C' and contrary to exhibit 'B', however, the counsel simply admitted same in evidence as an Exhibit without making any reference to his client. At page 137 of the record, their Lordships of the Lower Court per Belgore, JCA in his lead judgment therefore had this to say:"I have gone through both Exhibits 'B and 'C' and I found them to be positive, direct and unequivocal as to the commission of the offence of rape for which the appellant was charged. I also found the contents of Exhibits 'B' and 'C' to be consistent with the evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 and Exhibit 'A'. Exhibit 'B' and 'C'