head. The prosecuting counsel further submitted that the evidence of PW2, was corroborated by the substance of the confessional statements of the defendants. He then urge the court to infer conspiracy from the facts of doing things towards a common end by the defendants. - Aduku V. State {2009} 4NCC 350 - Busari V. State {2015} 11NCC 43 - Salawu V. State {2015} 11NCC 4 As to the offence of causing grievous hurt the prosecution counsel submitted that the evidence of PW2 and the exhibits tendered, all pointed to the fact that the prosecution has proved the elements of the offence against the defendants. - Ezigbo V. State [2007]7 NCC426 at 594 - Ahmad V. Nigerian Army {2011} 1NWLR pt 1227 p 89 - Abdullahi V. State [2008]3NCC 549 - Nwachukwu V. State [2007]11QCCR80 As to the offence of robbery, prosecuting counsel submitted that the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and the exhibits tendered, showed that there was robbery incidence on the 6/4/2014 when PW2 was robbed of his motorcycle by the defendants. He submitted further that since the evidence of the witnesses were never contradicted nor controverted, this court has no option than to act upon it He argued that though they tendered photocopies of the defendants statements not original, the originals got lost due to series of transfers of this case from two {2} different courts before it was transferred to this court as the third court. - Sections 89(c) and 90 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Page 8 of 18