From the circumstances of this case and the totality of the evidence adduced, has the prosecution proved all the ingredients of the offence of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure the conviction of the defendant? The sole issue for determination in this charge is, from the circumstances of : this case and the totality of the evidence adduced, has the , prosecution proved all the ingredients of the offence of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure the conviction of the defendant? The facts of this case fall within a narrow compass. It is clear from the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses that the P.W.1 who is the victim of the alleged armed robbery and the P.W.3 are the only eye witnesses of the commission of the crime who testified for the prosecution. It is now settled law as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the parties in their final written addresses that for the prosecution to succeed in proof of the offence of armed robbery against the defendant, the following ought to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to wit:(a) that there was a robbery or series of robberies; (b) that each robbery was an armed robbery, and (c) that the defendant was among those who took part in the armed robbery. SEE: BASSEY VS. THE STATE (2012) LPELR - 7813 (SC) 1. SOWEMIMO VS. STATE (2012) 2 NWLR (PT. 1234) 400. As I said earlier, the prosecution called only three witnesses and the P.W.1 and the P.W.3 are the only eye witnesses who testified for the prosecution since the P.W.2 was the team leade~ of the Investigating Police team . I will now proceed to examine t~e relevant evidence of the P.W.1. I intend to reproduce the said evidence of the witness because of its importance. First of all, the relevant portion of the evidence of the P.W.1 is as follows :- 3