In his reply, the prosecuting counsel submitted that by the listed elements of the offence of Armed Robbery at paragraph 1.3 of their adopted written address and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the exhibits tendered and admitted, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Defendant as required by law. He argued that the evidence of PW1 before this court who narrated the incident that happened in their house, shows that the prosecution has proved the 1st element of the offence and urge the court to so hold. He further argued that as to the 2nd element of the offence, the evidence of PW1, statement of the Defendant and the exhibits tendered and admitted, shows that the prosecution has also proved the 2nd element and urge the court to so hold. As to the 3rd element, the prosecution submitted that by the evidence of PW1 and denying declaration his wife Salamatu Umaru, the Defendant was identified as one of the robbers. He finally submitted that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and urge the court to so hold as well as convict the Defendant as charged. Let me pause here and state that it is trite law that in criminal trial, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Defendant charged with the allegation of committing a crime. - Ajibade V. State (2013) 8 NCC 221. - Smart V. State (2016) LPELR 40827. - Akinlolu V. State (2015) LPELR 25986. Page 8 of 21