She submitted in paragraph 4.5 that the identity of the 1st and 2nd defendants was never in issue as they were instantly recognised by PW4 and PW5. She submitted in paragraph 5.2 that from the evidence of PW4 and PW5, inference can be drown that it was the 3rd defendant that was seen in possession of the gun and urge the court to so hold. In paragraph 6.4 – 6.7, prosecuting counsel submitted that the confessional statement of the 3rd defendant was recorded in compliance with the formal requirements of the law as shown by the evidence of PW2 and its veracity can be seen in the evidence of PW4 and PW5 and urge the court to so hold. - Nwachukwu V. State {2007} ALL FWLR pt 390 p 1380 - Amoshima V. State {2009} 4 NCC 297 - Bassey V. State {2012 3-4 MJSC 77 at 194-195 She finally urge the court to convict the defendants as charged. It is trite law that in criminal trial, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the defendant who is charged with an allegation of committing a crime. - Ajibade V. State {2013} 8 NCC 221 - Smart V. State {2016} LPELR 40827 - Akinlola V. State {2015} LPELR 25986 The rationale behind this duty upon the prosecution, is derivable from the constitutional provision of presumption of innocence in favour of a defendant guaranteed by the 23