was filed stating, the difficulties of getting PW1 and PW2 in the previous court. The appellant's counsel neither filed a counter affidavit nor objected to Exhibit B being tendered in evidence. Counsel stated that Exhibit B was a public document which came from proper custody and thereby admissible see S. 104(1), (2) and (3) of the Evidence Act and S.156 Evidence Act 2011. Section 105 Evidence Act 2011 state that: Copies of documents certified in accordance with S. 104 may be produced in proof of the contents of public documents or part of public document which they purported to be copies". In the case of Okonji Vs. Njokanma (1999) 14 NWLR pt 638 page 250, the supreme court listed the 3 main criteria for admissibility. (a) Is the document Pleaded? (b) Is it relevant to the inquiry being tried by the court? (c) And is it admissible in Law. Achike JSC (as he then was) held: "... I am satisfied that there being proper conformance with those provisions of the evidence Act, Exhibit "B" (in the case) was properly, admitted in Evidence"' G & T Investment Ltd vs. WITT & Bush Ltd (2011) 8 NWLR Pt 1250 Page 500. Counsel submitted that Exhibit B was properly admitted in evidence and without objection by the Appellant. Counsel submitted that the judgment delivered by the trial Judge was very well considered and that the trial Judge convicted the Appellant on the evidence of a single eye witness Exhibit B. See Igbo Vs. The State (1975) NSCC vol. 9 at page 415. See also Oke vs. Republic (1967) Vol 5 NSCC page 76. Counsel referred the court to the Appellant's refusal to call his mother as a witness even though she was at home when the incident occurred. Counsel submitted that the evidence of Blessing Peter Asuquo an infant was corroborated by evidence of PW 2 the ACR and Exhibit A, the Medical Report tendered by PW1 Dr. Mmefin Ekpo. Counsel