, I I / 124) 92 particularly at page 116, UWAIS, J. follows:S. C. stated as "T_he cas~ for the 1st appellant is however different he did not raise the defence of alibi at h~s arrest but at the trial of the charge against h1~ . Th~ prosecution was not therefore obliged to 1nvest1gate the plea of alibi and could rely on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to disprove th_e alibi." SEE: SALAMI VS. STATE (Supra). NSOFOR VS. STATE (Supra). The defendant from · the evidence before me did not promptly and properly raise the defence of alibi. As such, there was no duty on the police in the circumstances to investigate, as no alibi was properly raised. Apart from th_is, the defendant did not call his said customer at the Building Materials Market, Ogidi whom he said he delivered the laptop : to and was on his way back when he was arrested by the Police. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the prosecution that it is only the said customer of the defendant that is in a position to substantiate the defendant's claim that he delivered the laptop to him at the Building Materials Market at that time. Accordingly, the defence does not avail the defendant to warrant the Court-to reach a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The implication is that the defence of alibi is not available to the defendant and I reject it as being an after thought and unmeritorious. In the final analysis, I.find and hold that the evidence adduced by the prosecution as a whole with the confessional statement which is Exhibit "C", failed to prove the offence of armed robbery against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. However, a lesser offence of robbery stood proved beyond reasonable doubt, and I so hold. It is now $ettled law that the Court can convict a defendant of a lesser offence than the one charged. Thus, a conviction for robbery can be substituted with one for armed robbery. SEE: OGU VS. QUEEN (1963) 2 SCNLR 74. 24