From the circumstances of this case and the
totality of the evidence adduced, has the
prosecution proved all the ingredients of the
offence of armed robbery beyond reasonable
doubt in order to secure the conviction of the
defendant?
The sole issue for determination in this charge is, from the
circumstances of : this case and the totality of the evidence
adduced, has the , prosecution proved all the ingredients of the
offence of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt in order to
secure the conviction of the defendant? The facts of this case fall
within a narrow compass. It is clear from the totality of the
evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses that the P.W.1
who is the victim of the alleged armed robbery and the P.W.3 are
the only eye witnesses of the commission of the crime who
testified for the prosecution. It is now settled law as rightly
submitted by the learned counsel for the parties in their final
written addresses that for the prosecution to succeed in proof of
the offence of armed robbery against the defendant, the following
ought to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to wit:(a) that there was a robbery or series of robberies;
(b) that each robbery was an armed robbery, and
(c) that the defendant was among those who took part in the
armed robbery.
SEE: BASSEY VS. THE STATE (2012) LPELR - 7813
(SC) 1.
SOWEMIMO VS. STATE (2012) 2 NWLR (PT.
1234) 400.
As I said earlier, the prosecution called only three witnesses and
the P.W.1 and the P.W.3 are the only eye witnesses who testified
for the prosecution since the P.W.2 was the team leade~ of the
Investigating Police team . I will now proceed to examine t~e
relevant evidence of the P.W.1. I intend to reproduce the said
evidence of the witness because of its importance. First of all, the
relevant portion of the evidence of the P.W.1 is as follows :-
3