serious doubt on the . defendant ut ?as~~~ t_h~ prosec~tion . Again , the moment a evidence ~-b~pb his alibi, it is not his function to establish by e a 1 ' ut for the prosecution to disprove it. , u,P SEE: ADEKUNLE VS. STATE (1989) 5 NWLR (PT 123 505~ . SALAMI VS. STATE (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 85) 670. Ho~e~e~, !,t is obvi~us from_ the statement to the police which is Exh1b1t C and evidence in court that the defendant did not properly raise the defence of alibi. In his evidence in court the ~efendant indicated where he was on the 5 th day of March , 2013 till_when he was arr~sted by the police. That is the wrong time to raise the defence of being elsewhere. The· duty on the defendant is that the alibi must be unequivocal and must be raised during the investigation of the offence and not during the trial. The rationale behind raising the defence when making statement to the police is to enable the police to inve&tigate the alibi. The burden on the defendant is an evidential burden which means that in his statement to the police he must give particulars of his whereabouts at the particular time. A mere allegation by the defendant that he was not at the scene of the crime at the time the offence was committed but in · his shop at Emeka Offer Plaza or with his customer at the Building Materials Market, Ogidi is not enough. He is expected to state where he was and the persons who knew of his presence at that place at the material time of the commission of the offence in question . Where a defendant fails to set up the alibi at the investigation stage with the necessary particulars, the defence will not be available to him . In the instant case, there is nothing to show that the defendant set up the defence of alibi during the investigation of the allegation made against him. In Exhibit "C" his statement to the police, he did not raise the defence of alibi. The defence of alibi that he was in his shop at Emeka Offer Plaze or with his customer at the Building Materials Market, Ogidi. at the material time of the commission of the offence was raised by the defendant for the first time during the trial and without necessary particulars in support in that he did not say with whom he was at the material time of commissio_n of the crime. The defence as such , has not been properly raised timeously. In the case of OZAKI VS. STATE (1990) 1 NWLR (PT. 23