State (1992) where the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the trial court because the evidence of the infants were not corroborated. Counsel urged the court to jettison Exhibit B relied on, to convict the Appellant. Counsel submitted that the trial court admitted Exhibit C, C1 and D the statements of the Appellant which he denied during his evidence in Chief. The said confessional statement Exhibit C & C1 were made before a superior police officer which is, only evidence that they were made but not evidence of the truth. See Suberu Vs. The State (2012) Vol 10 LRCNCC page 122 where it was held. Held 6: on whether a statement of an accused person to the Police is an evidence of the truth of its content: It is settled that a statement of an accused person to the police is evidence of the fact that it was made, but being an extra judicial statement, it is not evidence of the truth of its contents. The prosecution cannot rely on the alleged confessional statements of the Appellant tendered as Exhibit C, C1 and D to be the truth of their content. Yahaya Vs. State (2005) NCC PAGE 120. It would appear that the Appellant's statements Exhibit C, C1 and D2 are inconsistent with the Appellant's statement on oath. The court ought to look into the inconsistencies in both statements and resolve the issues as in Emoja Vs. State (1997) 55 LRCN page 2353 where the court held "On whether the inconsistency rule can be applied to the evidence and extrajudicial statement of an accused Person; the inconsistency rule which has been explained in the extractor the judgment of Uwaifo JCA is now the correct statement of the law. The inconsistency rule cannot be extended and applied to the evidence and extra judicial statement of an accused person". Counsel submitted that even if the court wants to rely on these confessional statements to convict the Appellant, there should be corroboration no matter how slight see Yahaya Vs. State (supra) Counsel therefore urged the court not to rely on the unreliable evidence of the child to convict the Appellant. In response, the learned counsel to the Respondent submitted that the trial court duly considered Exhibit B tendered in Evidence. See Section 46 (1) (a) (b) and (c) Evidence Act. 2011. The provisions laid down by this section were satisfied. The Investigating Police officer, PW3, swore to an affidavit which