( ' • . 4 • Cross~examined , DW·1 testified that he was formerly a commerci~t vehicie driver and later a conductor prior to his arrest. He has a known address at Fanny Ezems , Okpoko . He does not know the name of his landlord but his landlo( d is from Akokwa . He stated that they were Emm~:nuel Oku to the Emma nu~l 's house , but Ejimbt:, Chinonso Igwe them . .l two but the other person ran away . He mentioned police and _the police searched his house and nothing was- f;oLnd . He does not know Chimezie or Chizoba Ohc1eri and he did not indict any of DW1 denied robbing Ebuka Okeke of any necklace . He denied that such neckla :e was found in his possession . He denied that a gun was found in his po :,session : He also denied throwing any gun into the bush . He denied .... makin!;I or signing any statement at Nnobi. Police Station . He stated that it ~ was ~:ARS , Awkuzu that searched his house. He denied that Ebuka identifit=d him at Nnobi and Awkuzu (SARS) as the person that robbed him . There Nas no re -exam ination . Partie~; filed final written addresses at the close of trial. Prosecution 's final written address raised a sole issue , to wit: "Whe :her the Prosecution has proved its case against the 1st De.fendant. " I , i In the pefendant's final written address , two issues were raised , to wit: I 1. vVhether the Prosecution has discharged the burden of proof required c•f her in a criminal matter dr charge especially in a capital offence of this nature. 2 . V/hen the Prosecution fails to disch'arge the said burden what proper a rder is the honourable court required to make in the circumstances . The Defendant's counsel also filed a Repl'.f to the Prosecution 's final written add res•, . In the .,:,roof of their case , the Prosecuticrn who had the burden of proof called hNo witnesses . PW1 , the Police Investigating Officer who stated that on 31 /:12012 , one Ebuka Okeke made c! complaint of a case of stealing , CEA. . , COPY ..1dat ·P . E. I ' PF?l(t,pjLV~fGISTR~·R H\GH COURT N t ··.\/ 1 DATE.. I I