that was missing, but turned around to say that it was a staff of the Bank who told her about the missing/stolen amount. lt was stressed that PW2 informed this Court that the Bank failed to provide her with the necessary documents to enable her investigate this matter, but yet PW2 could assume that it was the Defendant who was the person who stole the said amount of money. lt is submitted that where there are two sets of interpretation, the Court should opt for the interpretation favourable to the Defendant. The case of Godwin Alao V. The State (2015) 5 IUJSC (Pt. 1) at 52 was cited and relied upon. It was highlighted that the Defendant was neither found with the alleged stolen/missing money, nor was he arrested at the very point of committing the offence. lt was stressed that it was the Bank lVanager who was not at the scene of crime nor called as a prosecution witness, who arrested the Defendant. It was canvassed that the failure of the prosecution to establish that the Defendant was indeed the person who committed the offence disentitles the Court from convicting such a defendant. The case of Tajudeen Fabisi V" The State (2015) 46 WRN at 45 was referred to. lt is submitted that PW1's testimony under examination in chief were he stated that it was Eleven lVillion, naira that was missing, he later under cross examination stated that it was the sum of Eleven Million, Four Hundred Thousand Naira, amounted to a malicious contradiction, and, so cause doubts in the case of the prosecution. The case of Eke V" State eA11) 1 -2 SC (Pt. 11)219 was cited in this regard. On the ingredients of conspiracy, the case of Shoduya V. The State (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 230) 457 was cited. So two, the case of Ontario Oil and Gas (Nig.) Limited V" Federal Republic of Nigeria, no year referred to, but citation given by the Learned Counsel to the Defendant to be 46 WRN at 102. It is submitted that from the evidence, common agreement at a particular time to carry out an unlawful act as disclosed. Furthermore, it is submitted that it is the prosecution that has the burden to prove the offence of conspiracy, and from the circumstances, provide the materials before the court for which it can infer or presume from, that the offence of conspiracy has indeed been proved" The Case of David omotola & ors. V. The State (2009) 2 ACLR 29 at 4s - 46 was referred to. lt is submitted that the prosecution has not been able to discharge that burden. On lssue No. lll, it is submitted that the confessional statement of the Defendant cannot be believed, since it was involuntarily made. lt is stressed that Exhibit A he subjected to the six way tool as enunciated in the case of Kazeen V. State (2009) 29 WRN 43 at 53. lt is submitted that nothing outside Exhibit A 9