court to justify the tendering of the statement through him and therefore hears any. - Sections 37 and 126 of the Evidence Act 2011 - Sections 49 and 50 of the Evidence Act 2011 - Umoren V. The Queen {1963} NSCC 293 As to causing grievous hurt, defence counsel submitted that PW2 although PW2 testified to the fact that he was attacked by the defendants, he did not mention the name of the defendants or identify which of them attacked him neither was a medical report tendered to show the extent of the injury sustained by the witness. He therefore urge the court to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence. Defence counsel submitted that as to the offence of conspiracy, there is no evidence of the meeting of the minds of the defendants to commit any crime which was led before this court by the prosecution and urge the court to so hold. Defence counsel finally submitted that by the evidence of the prosecution, the prosecution has failed to prove the offences alleged against the defendants and urge the court to discharge and acquit the defendants of the three {3} offences. In his response, the prosecuting counsel that the offence of conspiracy has been proved by the prosecution through the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 as well as exhibits ‘A’, ‘A1’, ‘B’, ‘B1’, ‘C’, ‘C1’, ‘D’ and ‘D1’. He submitted that PW2 in his evidence has informed this court how the 3 defendants stopped them and requested him to convey them to Kantin Daji Area as well as how they used iron rods and hit him on the Page 7 of 18