74. The Applicant also submits that the trial court misdirected itself on a point of law by overlooking the contradictions of the prosecution witnesses during the trial within a trial and admitting exhibit P-9 contrary to the procedure of admitting exhibits. 75. He further alleges that the court erred on a point of law by using exhibit P-9 to find an intention of the Applicant to commit an unlawful act, namely that of killing, rather than stealing. Accordingly, the court erroneously continued to hold that the Applicant fully participated in the killing of the deceased while there was no evidence for this claim. 76. The Applicant, moreover, contends that the court erred in law by using exhibit P-8, which is the confession statement of the co-accused, as the basis to convict the Applicant without other corroborative independent testimony. 77. Finally, the Applicant also claims that the court erred in law by admitting and using exhibit P-7 to convict the him while the ownership of the alleged stolen articles was not distinguished from other materials, and that there were no marks on the exhibits to certify that they were owned by the deceased, with the result that the evidence was not collaborated by other independent evidence. * 78. The Respondent State disputes the various allegations made by the Applicant. It submits that the Applicant was convicted based on nothing less than credible evidence which was properly considered by the trial court. 79. Specifically on the issue of the extra-judicial statement, the Respondent State refers to page 35 of the trial court’s proceedings, where it emerges that the advocate for the second accused objected to the extra-judicial statement being tendered in Court as it was not given voluntarily and the second accused was not a free agent before the justice of the peace. The Respondent State also references page 36 of the trial proceedings record, 18