Finally, learned appellant counsel's submission that the reliance of the two Courts on exhibit A, appellant's confessional statement inspite of his plea of non-est factum has occasioned miscarriage of justice cannot be taken seriously. Learned counsel has conceded to and the record of appeal has disclosed the fact that exhibit A on being tendered, was admitted in evidence without any objection by the appellant who was represented by counsel. The test for the admissibility of any evidence remains its relevance to the issue at hand. See ACB Ltd v. Gwagwada (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt 342) 25 and Dr Imoro Kubor and Anor V. Hon. Seriake Henry Dickson & Ors (2012) LPELR-9817 (SC). In law, it must be accepted, a clear distinction exist between the question whether a particular evidence is admissible and the question of its probative value or the weight to be attached to it. The fact that evidence, oral or documentary, is admissible does not mean that it has any probative value or weight at all. But once it is found to be of value the Court may rely on the evidence to arrive at an enduring decision. See Gbafe V. Gbafe (1996) 6 NWLR (pt 455) 417. At pages 176 - 177 of the record of appeal, the lower Court held in relation to appellant's plea of non est factum inter-alia as follow:, "On the issue of the statement, exhibit A, it is the contention of the appellant that he did not make the statement because learned counsel for him had raised the defence of non est factum when the statement was being tendered in evidence Thereafter the statement was admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit A. The appellant did not say anything in elaboration of his plea of non est factum. In