n . .., ' .. ..... " J ~v c- I t · p I {JV(:-' a ,n e V, d en Ce by th !' pros{'( ut ion On t hl' count nf unl,1wful and wilful damage _ He submits also th at tht> Pw l !I'd t>vtdt>nci> of dt> slruction of his property and cited Exhibits Pl t o Hi and urged the court to so hold ilnd co nvict !he defendant acu1rd1ngly . I On th r ,,sup of Re ce1v1ng stol en propPrt y, learned counsel su b~l ts that thi s w as n o t par-1 of the original charge but the evidence led makes it imperatively an of1ence . He subm its that t he evide nc e led showed that the defen dant received st olen proper-1 ,e s trom his f lee ,ng brother as the de fen da n t durong <.rO!>~ ~)(am ina t ,on confessed so , cit in g the case of HARU NA v AG F=EO . NSCQR VOL 4q 2012 at page 1410 etc as a coun can co nvict one on a confes sional ~tatPmPnt HP cite!> also Sect ion 279 of the Admi ni stration of Criminal Justice La w 20 10 An am br ;; St at e in sup po rt which statE> s thilt one can be co nvicted upon proo f o f r ec@iving property in .1 charge of st ez-t lin g . In ( onc:lu~i on , ht~ urge ~ the court to c on v, c t th e d e f end ant a s there is ov~ nvhelming ev,denc.e led bv the p rosecu t ion to sho w his culpab ili ty . lh 1s. ,~ the n,au~, bef ore t he court ic ,s worth no ting that the p rosecut,on had t'd f 11~1 ~ough t t o am e nd t h e Proofs of Evi dence through a p rocess dated 7/5/20 18 bu! short!\' oe for e the ad option of fin3I addres~es, .learned pr osf" cut in g counse l apphed to \i•~tt hdra,.., same and was so granted Learned d c.: 1e nc c- t.CH,.lfb e l d !O n o t uppO) t:- rhE \f~Hhdra i.-.a l WHh t his, t he co urt shal l go in