on it. He said that his vehicle has been released to him, but he has no access to his account. He said his personal keys have not released to him. Under cross-examination, he said that one Wlnsp. Eguolor Chukwurah is the IPO of this case. He said that she was harsh to him. He stated that he was in Court when the IPO testified as PW2, and no issue relating to beating arose. He stated that it was here in Court that he got to know that his IPO is a female, since, it was lnsp. Gabriel who was taking statements from him. He emphasized he was slapped and beaten up by the police Officers. He stated that he wrote his statement twice, after being beaten up, and, then on the third occasion, wrote verbatim whatever was dictated to him. He stated that as a BSC holder, he can write. He stated that he was not there when the money inside the ATIVI was stolen, because he had already gone home. He stated that the person who made away with the money was on duty with him, and that he did not leave before closing hour" He stated that he was not with the key when the money was stolen, because according to him, the key was with Vitalis who is now at large. He said his term of duty had not lapsed when the key was still with vitalis. There was no re-examination, and that was the case for the Defence. ln the Written address filed by the Learned Defendant's Counsel, three issues were presented for determination, viz; (1)Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of the Defendant beyond reasonable doubt?; (2) Whether the prosecution has proved the elements of the offences of conspiracy and stealing?, and, (3) Whether the confessional statement signed by the Defendant believable and whether this Honourabre court can rely on it. is On issue No. l, on proof beyond reasonable doubt, the cases of Saidu V. The State (2009) 29 WRN 86 at g7 and Solola V. State (2005) 127 LRCN 1091 at 1098 were cited in this respect, and to highlight the fact that the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. On proof of all the essential ingredients of the offences, the case of state v. Aba Tyoumbur (19gg) 2 LRCNCC at 88. It was canvassed that PW1's evidence is hinged on hearsay evidence, and, furthermore that the police failed to carry out a proper investigation. lt was further submitted that the arrest and arraignment of the defendant was done/carried out illegally. The case of Happy Kingsley ldemudia V. The State 7