6 c. t he· Defendant was among the robbers . See BOZIN VS . STATE (1985) 5 NWLF~ (PT .8) 465 . 1 It is :he law that the burden is on the Prnsecution to prove the case against the pefendant beyond reasonable doubt and this means the establishment of a! I the ingredients of the offence charged in tandem with the dictates of Secl:ion 138 of the Evidence Act. ·See AJAYI VS . STATE (2013) LPELR 1 (19S44) SC . .,.,- ·: On the ingredient of whether there was a robbery . Of the two witnesses who gave evidence for the Prosecutior. , none of them was an eye witness . PW:: was informed of the presence of thieves and he rushed to the scene and found the crowd with the Defendant and Ebuka . It was the crowd and -... Ebu -(a who told him what happened . ~,either the people in th~ crowd who witn,:~ssed the robbery nor Ebuka who was allegedly robbed gave evidence . In t~ 2 circumstances of the PW1 and PW2 not being eye witnesses , Ebuka who was an eye witness to th crime sho uld have been called to help the 1 cou r: reso lve the case of whether or not there was a robbery . See HAS.SAN VS . ST A TE (2016) LPE LR 42554 . I On the 2 nd i ingred ient of the robbers being armed , Prosecution witni~?sses did not give evidence of seeing the Defendant armed . All they said was that they we re told that Defendant was armed . No gun was reco ·1ered from the Defendant. Ebuk3 whose statement was tendered refu !:;ed to test ify . PW1 and PW2 have no direct knowledge of any relevant fact n issue , they were not at the sceri ·2 - locus cri min inis, never observed nor ·L1ave direct knowledge of the crime . The offence is a capital one and procf is beyond reasonable doubt. The court cannot act on mere suspicion . 1 1, • On i he 3 rd ingredient of whether the Defendant was among the robbers . I hat e already held that the evidence before me was so insufficient to prove then~ was a robbery or that the robbers were armed , so , there is not scinti lla of evidence that the Defendant was among the robbers . Ct 1'T OB \ J COPY P · E. PAINCIPA I/REGISTR~R. HIGH COURT NN ·._. I OATE . .. -