Section 167 (d) of the evidence Act inures the Appellant against the Respondent with a fatal consequence that inspite of the other evidence on record including the Appellant's confessional statement, the conviction and sentence of the Appellant cannot be sustained. Regrettably, the Respondent now has to bear the brunt of the damning effect of its failure, for whatever reason, in the first place for not tendering the statement in evidence. The beneficiary of that failure must be the Appellant against whom the evidence was withheld. Ironically, the learned Respondent's Counsel relying on the same case of PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE VS UMARU (Supra) contended that the none tendering of the statement would have been an issue if the learned trial Judge had relied on it. This argument is completely off track. Firstly, the question of relying on an untendered document is out of the way, and expectantly being off target, it missed the goal post. Conversely, his argument that the Court decided that the non-tendering of the statement was not fatal is anything but the correct position of that decision. Nothing can be further away from what was therein decided. The decision is quite diametrical to the Counsel's argument. It is precisely against him and unequivocally in favour of the Appellant. This is what the Court held at the said paragraphs F - G at page 679 of the report: "I think the tendering of the accused's statement made to the Police (considered to be confessional) is very vital, necessary and fundamental in grounding a conviction otherwise the conviction is defective and can be quashed and any sentence premised upon can equally be set aside...". ?It is crystal clear that this authority does not support the Respondent but only helps the case of the Appellant. It will therefore by flying on the face of the above decision to contend that the none-tendering of the statement is not fatal. On the whole, all said and done, the sum effect of all these is that the issue is resolved in favour of the Appellant against the Respondent. Resultantly, the appeal has merit and it is accordingly allowed. Consequentially, the conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the lower Court in its Judgment of 21/12/2016 are hereby set aside. In their stead, the Appellant is discharged and acquitted." Per WAMBAI, J.C.A. (Pp. 26-36, Paras. C-A) (...read in context) AMINA AUDI WAMBAI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):Â This appeal before us emanated from the judgment of Jigawa State High Court in charge No. JDU/050/C/2012 delivered by Hon. Justice Umar M. Sadiq, on 21/12/2016 which convicted the Appellant for the offence of rape punishable under Section 283 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to 7 years imprisonment without an option of fine. The facts on the part of the Respondent are that on the 30/04/2012 while Maryam Abdullah then aged 10 years was returning from the farm (Garden) with her friends, Shamsiyya Ibrahim (PW 2) and Nafisa