f • 5 1 that t ne Defendant forcibly removed his, gold necklace from his neck an d stole ::,is two nokia hand sets valued at f\J25 ,000.00. PW1 .stated that the vigilante recovereo the gold necklace and handed it over to Ebuka . He however after investigation recommended stealing as the p,Joper charge . I II I In crbss-examination , he stated that ..lt was the vigilante that arrested the Defendants , that no weapon was'"1ransferred to the station and that no I stolen items were handed over to him . · PW2 was the chairman of Awka Etiti vig·ilante. He stated being informed on 31 /3/ 12 of thieves seen in the village . He and his men on getting to the seen :~, met a crowd and the Defendant ~foscribed as one of the thieves . He was nformed that the Defendant was caught,.. while his accomplice who was -3 rmed ran away . He was also info rmed Jhat the Defendant tore out the ri ,2cklace of one Ebuka Okeke who was then present and confirmed the story Cros:3-exam ined , he stated he did not 'see the Defendant wit~ a gun . He howE:iver saw the Defenda nt at the scene of crime . In hi :r written subm iss ion, Ch'iri ty Madukife , Chief State Counsel , for the Statf::, subm itted that where a defenc1a nt was caught , trying to escape during the comm ission of an offence and the vict im of the crime was presant at the scene and positively id,entified the Defendant , there is no neec. for the formal ity of holding an i:lentification parade . Reliance was plac,~d on IBRAHIM VS . STATE (1991 ) 4 NWLR (Pt. 186) 399 . Cou1.1sel subm itted that PW1 and F'W2 gave direct and unequ ivocal evid2nce of what they saw and heard . She cited Section 126 of the Evid13nce Act. That they were consistent as to the identity of the Defendant as tie person who comm itted the offen ::e . It is the rule that to succeed in a case of armed robbery , the Prosecution mus : prove that: a. - ·here was robbery or series of robberies ; b. -t he robbers were armed ; '\ CF1' 0 1 c op y P . E. PR mCJP L/RfGfSTR~-R HIG~ N c:ruRT , DATE . . . _