"The statements were tendered by prosecution and admitted in evidence. The accused did not deny at the point of tendering them that he did not make them to police. Exhibit C came with C1 which was duly endorsed by a superior Police Officer to show that the accused admitted that Exhibit C represented what he said... Furthermore where a confessional statement has been tendered and admitted without objection is later retracted is of no moment". Finally, counsel submitted that the respondent proved its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. counsel therefore urged the court to hold that the respondent proved the case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel to the Appellant had argued strenuously that the learned trial Judge convicted the Appellant on the hearsay evidence of PW3 the Investigating Police officer and on Exhibit B, the court proceedings in the first court of trial. The learned trial Judge relied on S.39 of the Evidence Act 2011 in admitting Exhibit B. Section 39 provides. Statements, whether written or oral of facts in issue or relevant facts made by a person(a) Who is dead; (b) Who cannot be found; (c) Who has become incapable of giving evidence; or (d) Whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the court unreasonable, are admissible under section 40 to 50. The infant Master Blessing Peter Asuquo who gave evidence with his mum in the first court as PW1 & PW2 respectively were nowhere to be found. They had packed out of the Appellant's compound and could not be traced. Section 39 definitely provided for this position the prosecution found itself. PW1 & PW2 fell under the category of 39 (b) "who cannot be found".