arrested by a mob and taken to the police station in Banssang where he denied the allegation against him. On the other hand whilst the prosecution witnesses assert that it was the accused who took PW2 away, the accused has vehemently denied this allegation. Generally in criminal cases and indeed, as in this case, the crucial issue is not ordinarily whether or not the offence was committed. More often than not, the controversy is about the real identity of the perpetrator. Identification evidence therefore tends to show that it was the accused person who was seen committing the offence. In the Nigerian Supreme court case of NDIDI V. THE STATE (2007) 30 SCQR 395 the Court held that in order to determine the identity of the accused as the perpetrator of the offence, the following issues must be taken into consideration: (a) circumstances in which the eye-witnesses saw the suspect, (b) the length of time the witnesses saw the suspect, (c) the lighting conditions, (d) the opportunity of close observations and (e) the previous contacts between the two. The facts of this case show that the incident occurred well after 7 pm in the evening when it was already dark. The accused person in his Cautionary Statement to the police said he was arrested between the hours of 8 and 9 pm in the evening. This evidence which was never challenged is taken as settled. All the witnesses testified that it was already dark. From these pieces of evidence I am convinced that the state of light at the locus criminis was very poor and this I shall hold as a fact. 8