1. The prosecution failed to mention names and addresses of the villagers who purportedly informed the investigating team that nobody answer Eni Irem in the community. 2. The prosecution also failed to call as witnesses at least one villager who purportedly informed the investigating team that nobody answers Eni Irem in the community. 3. The evidence of the prosecution to the fact that the villagers informed the investigating team that nobody answer Eni Irem is unbelievable and should create serious doubt in the mind of Court. GROUND FOUR The learned trial Judge erred in law and in facts when he held as follows:It should be noted that the accused did not contest the voluntariness of his Exhibit p3 which was direct, positive and unequivocal of facts that satisfy the ingredients of the offence the accused person confessed to have committed. PARTICULARS OF ERROR 1. The appellant maintained in the evidence that he was gravely tortured and his shirt torn by the police at station before the Exhibit p3 were extracted from him. 2. The said Exhibit p3 cannot qualify as confessional statement in view of Section 28 of Evidence Act, 2011 as amended. 3. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt by way of cogent and compellable evidence that the said Exhibit p3 was voluntarily obtained before the same can be tendered and admitted in evidence, which duty the prosecution failed to discharge.