daughter into the bush in order to rape and kill her, he had proceeded to his own family compound and did the same thing to a nine year old girl, say: any of his own siblings or nieces/cousins. It is then that his insanity could have become undeniably and irrefutably manifest! My Lords, it must be remembered that insane delusion is a product of a disordered mind which conjures up some facts which it thinks do exists. It adheres to such impaired facts against all reasonable evidence to the contrary. Therefore, for a defence of intoxication or insane delusion to avail an accused person such as the appellant herein, his reaction to the state of things as believed by him must be such that it could be regarded as legitimate and natural reaction to such state of things. Egbe Nkanu v. The State (1980) 3 - 4 SC 1; Effiong Udofia v. The State (1981) 11 - 12 SC 49; M.A. Sanusi v. The State (1984) 10 SC 166; Ejinima v. The State (1991) 7 SCNJ (pt. II) 318). I am in agreement with the learned trial judge that the defence of intoxication or insanity as a result of intoxication is not available to the appellant. I resolve issue 1 against the appellant. Issue 2 It is the contention of the appellant's learned counsel that with the retraction of the confessional statements in Exhibits A and D by the appellant at the trial, the conditions stipulated in R. v. Sykes (1913) 8 CAR 223 were not fulfilled before the learned trial judge convicted the appellant on those retracted confessional statements. He relied on Nsofor v. The State (2004) 18 NWLR (pt. 905) 292; Dawa v. The State (1980) 8 - 11 SC 236 at 267 - 268; The Queen v. Obiasa (1962) 2 SCNLR 402; (1962) 1 All NLR 651; Edet Obosi v. The State (1965) NMLR 307; Ebhomien v. Queen (?) 2 SCNLR 332; (1963) 1 All NLR 365; Paul Onochie & Ors v. The Republic (?) 1 SCNLR 204; Obue v. The State (1976) 6 SC 167. Learned appellant's counsel commented on each of the six conditions laid down in R. v. Sykes (supra) and submitted that none of them was fulfilled before the appellant was convicted on his retracted confessional statements. Resolution of Issue 2. The law is no longer recondite, but well settled that a conviction can be grounded and sustained on a free and voluntary confessional statement made by an accused person. This is so, because a confessional statement is the strongest evidence against the maker thereof. Usman Kaza v. The State (2008) 2 SCNJ 375 at 423; Arogundade v. The State (2009) 2 SCNJ 44 at 49 - 50; Ilodigwe v. The State (2012) 18 NWLR (pt. 1331) 1 at 29 - 30. And where an accused person resiles from admitting the making of the confessional statement, it is better and expedient that some bit of evidence as corroboration,outside the confession be found in support of the confessional statement. Golden Dibie &