record of his identification of the defendant; he testified that the person who recorded his statement is Omini and he doesn't know whether he recorded it or not. It is clear from the evidence of the P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 that the defendant was not arrested at the scene. It should also be appreciated that the extra judicial statement of the P.W.3 which he made to the police on the 6th day of March, 2013 was not tendered through him under cross examination and so was not admitted as an exhibit in this proceeding . The question then is whether the prosecution has successfully established that there was a robbery or series of robberies and that each robbery was an armed robbery. These are the first two ingredients of the offence of armed robbery which the prosecution is expected to prove beyond reasonable doubt In considering these, I will for now not use the defendant's extra judicial statement which is Exhibit "C" for obvious reasons . From the evidence of the P.W.1 highlighted above, it is clear to me that notwithstanding that intermittently she referred to the people as armed robbers ; there is nothing in her evidence to suggest that the people who robbed the bank were bearing gun or gu_ ns. As a matter of fact, she did not say that the people were carrying weapons of any kind . The P.W.2 in his evidence testified that the 4 robbers were each carrying gun . But he was not at the scene of crime and did not give evidence of what he saw. His evidence is that he was the team leader of the investigating police team and was not an eye witness of the crime. Even at that, he agreed under cross examination that when the defendant was arrested, no gun was found on him. It was only the P.W.3 that testified that the people who came to rob the bank on that fateful day came with one A.K.47 riffle. The learned counsel for the defendant in that regard in his final written address contended that the testimony of the P.W.3 is so fraught with discrepancies that it will be very risky to be relied upon to convict anybody for an offence as grievous as armed robbery. He then submitted that the doubt attendant to the evidence of the P.W.3 also taints his testimony that the defendant was bearing arms during the robbery operation . In his response in his final written address, ~he learned counsel for the prosecution contended that the cumulative evidence of the P.W.1 - P.W.3 and Exhibit "C have proved the charge alleged against the defendant successfully. He argued that the statement made by the P.W.3 at the Police Station was not tendered by the defence when he was 11 8