Stal e (2000) 7 NWLIZ (pl (i66) 686 and NWO'.:,U 433 . '" VS . StcJlC ( IY9 8 J X NW! I{ (pl S (i 2 ) ·1he lea rn ed co un se l co nt end ed th at th e charge again st th e dclcndant 1s c1 '> LTI OLI '> one. That th e ulle nce or arm ed robbery carries a penalt y nl" dedth up cJ11 C() ll\ 1cl 1<J 11 I le su bmitted th e ingredients of the offence o r arm ed robb ery arc : 1. th ere must be a robhery . ii . the robbery n1u st be nn arn1cd robber y. 111. the accu sed rerson mu st he among th ose\\ hu took part in the arm ed robber; . Re li,1n ce wc1 s plc1ccd nn th e !'ul IU\v ing _j ud ic i;1 I ;;1uthmit ies: A mush ima \ s. I he Slctle (2009) 32 WI\ N 47 ru) 95 . The Pcor lc ol l .agDS StJte vs. Urnaru (201.'.\) 2U WRN I (ii) 24 : ;\wosika & !\Nor vs . The Stc1l c (2010) 18 Wl~N 149 r( t 174: O)e h() l;:1 \'<., The St8te (2007) 48 WRN 89 (uJ 10 \ Ose ni vs. Th e St i. 1l e (2 0 12) 37 Wl{ N I (o ,-U and OguJo vs . The Sta te (20 12) 15 Wl{N I (ut 32 re,, Jl . CD un se l 1·urth er <., uh111itkd that th e onus is ;1 lways on th e prosecu tion to rrn ve th e gui lt ()r the ;1ccused hcy ()nd rea sonable doubt. The si11cc mmed rohher y c1 llr,JCl '> Jectlh penc1 lt y. tile prn \ L'CL llllln carries he,1vy on us lll di sc lwrge. To th is . lie n:: J"crrcd tu l(i:.1hiru , s 1\ . c; _ <>gun St ;1ll: (2008) 49 Wl{N I 00 @ 120. Lc,1rned coun<-;e l rnnlendcd tlrn l tu di sc hc1 rge lh c burd en or proor, th e prosecution mu st pro ve thc !cJ l! o,, in g e<.,s en ti al clement s, tu"' it: a. confess ional slatement ol'the accuse d m b. ci rcumstantia l evidence c. evi dence 018 11 eye wi tn esses I-l e referred to Adedara vs . The Stat e (2009) 52 Wl{N 66 (01 !--Vi : Arno shi1m1 vs . Th e State (2009) 32 WR N 47 <cu 95 . CllllllScl contenckd that in the: in slunl ca st . the prosec ution relied on direct evi dence ,ind conlcssion,1 I L' \'ick ncc . ur The learned co unsel argued th at th e prosec uti on re li ed on th e evi dence th e prosecution witness to es tabli sh direc t evidence . Learned counsel found l'aults in th e testimonies of th e prosecution witn esses . To him , th e PW I co uld not tell the cloth the defendant w8s wea ring on th e day of th e robbery. That PW I merely idenli l'i ed the defe ndant ,vi lh out more . That PW I admitted that she was not prese nt al th e place th e defen dant W8S arrested ; th e defendant was not arrested ut th e sce ne of th e crime; PW I 's stol en money was not found on th e defe ndant ; no id enti lication parade was conducted for her and th e pol ice mere ly sho wed the defe nd an t to her as one of the person th at robbed her. Lemned co un se l lampooned the PW2 as bei ng in consistent in th at hi s oral tes timon y in court conflict with hi s extra _judicial statem ent to the police. That PW2 could not say th e type of cloth the defe nd an t was \\ coring that clay : he could not tell the regi stration number of th e mot orcyc le: th at defendant had been ca ught befo re he came to th e police station : th at the bus driver (PW3) was one o f th e perso ns th at pursued and caught th e defe ndan t: th at PW2 a Ilcgcd that most or what he told the pol ice was not recorded by th e police and he sm,v the defendant for the first time on th at day . Page I 3