person, or property in order to obtain or retain the thing stolen, or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen or retained.” By paragraph 14.0 of the adopted written address of the defence, the defence counsel submitted that by the provisions of Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 and other plethora of cases, the prosecution is required to prove the elements of the offence against the Defendant beyond reasonable doubt, and further argued that the elements of the offence of armed robbery, are as follows:a) That there was robbery or series of robberies; b) That each robbery was an armed robbery; and c) That the Defendant was one of those who participated. - Udo V. State (2016) 34 WRN 60. - FRN V. Uheh (2019) 191 WRN 117. - Golit V. IGP (2020) 19 WRN 1 The prosecution by their paragraph 1.3 of the adopted written address, also agreed with the defence counsel with regard to the elements of the offence which the prosecution is required to proof beyond reasonable doubt. - Bozin V. State (1985)2 NWLR pt 8 p 465. The defence counsel while arguing their position, submitted that the prosecution by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Defendant as the case of the prosecution against the Defendant was capitalized on suspicion which he said cannot constitute the basic of convicting the Defendant for the offence alleged against him. Page 6 of 21