when the ar111ed man snatched the 111oney from PW : shortly alter, the boys srccl ofr PWJ , n co mmercial bus driver drove in with his bus . PW2 shouted to him th at th e boys on the motorcyc le were armed robbers . That Lh ey _just robbed Lh e sales girl s PW J. PW2 asked PW3 to pursue the boys with bus . PW3 obeyed . I-le later caught up with the boys at Nwagu _junction , Agulu . According to PW3 in his extra judicial statement to the police, he hit the boys ' motorcycle from behind. The boys Jell , rose and took to their heels . They were pursued by people . One of the boys who was armed escaped and the defendant was caught. (\ As I said earlier the defendant anchored his defence on total denial of the ' allegation . According to him in his oral testimony , he denied ever knowing one Gozie Akpatanku . He clai111ed that he did not go to Capac! Filling Station to rob anybody. He claimed that he is a commercial motorcyclist. That on the day in question he rook off from Nkwo Market, Enugwu Ukwu to Agukwu-Nri with hi s passenger. He dropped off his passenger at Eke market, Agukwu Nri but was !lagged down by another passenger to convey him to a secondary school at Nwagu, Agulu . He did . Thereafter, he turned to go back to Enugwu-Ukwu but was stopped by policemen at Nwagu , Agulu. The particulars of his motorcycle were confiscated. The policemen abandoned hi111 there and refused to release the documents to him . From there, the policemen took him to their station and further confiscated his mobile phone. That he was beaten up and was incarcerated in their eel I. He was later transferred to State Armed Robbery Squad (SARS) Neni vvhere he was accused of committing armed robbery. He admitted that he signed exhibit P3 ,after he was beaten up by both the investigation police officer (IPO) and PW4 . He gave description of how he was beaten up, tortured and oppressed . He claimed that the beating and torture he underwent left scars on his body . That he \Vas made to sign exhibit P3 after being promi sed that he would be released . He denied ever tel I ing Lh c police all the facts that are contained in exhibit P3 . He stated that nothing incrimin ating vvas found on him and in his house . Finally, the defendant stated that there was no identification parade by the police before he was identified as one of the armed robbers that robbed Capad Filling Station . The defendant's counsel : J. l lguh Esq , raised the following issue for determination in hi s fin al written address : ·'Whether rh e prosecution proved the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt?" The Stat e coun se l: C. V. Anyaorah Esq., adopted the issue for determination ilS formu lat ed hy th e defendant 's counsel . In his argument, the de knee counsel suhmilled th at by th e provisions oJ' sec tions 138 (I) of th e Evidence Act. til e stc1 ncbrd proof in all criminal trials is rruul' beyond reasonable doubt. I le rekrred Lu Adeytmo v~ Lhc State (2012) 30 WRN 67 re ~88 ; O111adiarc & A11or vs . A . C . Fc:d . (? 0 13_) 32 WRN 128 ((~ 142 : Aikhadutki vs~· The State (2013) 4:? WRN I ;0 IX : Onik' \ 'S. The S1,1 tc ( I lJ90) I NW LI{ (pl 114): l\ hok ok uy,1nrn ,,s. The St,lfl' ( ~U I I) 36 Wl< N 78 u_, 97: lck,nuda ,,s S1c1lc ( 1999) 7 NWL R (pt 6 10 ) 202: /\ig b,tdi ull \'~. or 1 Page I2