\\ RN -U u 74 . Coun se l '-,rg ued Lh ar Lh c onu s is on Lh e prn secu t ion in tri~il wi thi11 t,·i:il l() prove th e i11 vo l11ntarin css of th e co nfes s iona l stcHe111e1ll . On th e effec t o(no n- co ndu cting of trial within trial . cou nsel rckrred to /\ckdur<1 v s. The State Supra (r?J 147. He urged th e court to ex pun ge and re_jec l exhibit PJ . It v,as co nt ended 1ha1 for co urt to con vic t b~1sed on retracted co nfess ional stateme nt. it Illu s ! sL1 bjec 1 th e statem ent to tes ts laid down in Kanu vs . Kin g ( I 95::Z) 14 WAC/\ JO; Kabiru Vs . A .G. Ogun Sta te (200/'s) supra @ I 00 : Awos ik e & Ano r vs . -1he State supra; Oseni vs . Stale supra: .lim oh vs . The Sta te Supra and Ogucl o/ vs . Sta le supra. Co un sel arg ued 1hat th e police in vcstiguti on d id not ,-e, ec:1 1 uny co rro borative ev idence aga in st the uefendant. Th at th e g un an d th e sto len money we re not recovered from th e defend ant. That PW4 co nfirm ed thi s in hi s ev idence . Finally. learn ed co un se l suh111i11 ed 1h a1 1. nothin g out s id e the conlcss iu11 :il st;_ itcmcnt ,,a . , pro ved lo shO\\ rh ~ll lhe a ll ega ti on wa s tru e. 11 . th e confession was not corroborat ed. 111. th ere was no other asce rt ain ed /Je ts con s isten t ,, irh th ose co nu-,in ed in the statem ent th at we re es tabli shed . The court ,vas urged to ho ld th at th e co nfess ional sta tement did not rrove the guilt of the defendant. In response, the prosec utin g counsel conceded rhar th e onu s is l1 11 th e prosccurion to prove the guilt of the accused person beyo nd reasonabk doubt. l~el iJn ce w,1s placed on the case of Golan le vs . S rate (2005 ) (pt 925) 431 . Lc r1rn ed cm111 sel L'Oflle11ded that the connotc11ion of' proof beyond reaso nubl e doubt does not entail proof wirh mathematical exactitude or proof beyo nd slrnd ow of doubt . Learned counsel referred to Dibie vs . Sta le (2004) J 4 NW LR ( pl 893) ?. 5 7 and A folulu vs . Stale (2010) 16 NWLR (pl 1220) 584. Learned counsel agreed with the defence counsel that the burden the prosecution bears in proof of offence of armed robbery is to prove that: 1. there was robbery ii . the robbery was an armed one. 111. the accused was one of the armed robbers or the robber. Learned counsel contended these three elements were manifested in the instant case. She submitted the PWl gave an eye witness account of the incident. Counsel contended that this account is one of the ways of proving armed robbery . She referred lo lgabele vs . The State (2006) 6 NWLR (pt 975) l 00, Mc1igari vs . Stelle (20 l 0) 16 N WLR (pt 1220) 439. Learned counsel contended llrnt both PW I and Page I5