looked intently at the arguments of al l counsel before me as we ll as the ev idence led by the prosecution in support of their charge and I conc lude that the pros ec uti on has not led evidence to support the charge of arme d robbery against the defendants . I shel l! give an exam pl e with excerpts of the cro,ss examination of the Pw2 by the counsel fo r th e Question - f t defendant on 13/12/17 thus : "You said at th e time tho se boys en tered, did they dispossessed (s ic) of any thing before th ey left'? ' Answer - "No they did not because when my mother shou ted, they were no longer comfortable and th ey ran away. " One can see that thi s is 110 evide nc e of ar med robbery according to the definition of same . Had th e prosecut ion a111ended the cha rge before closing their case , the situation would have been d iffe ren t . We should remember that presumption of innocence is a constitutional provision . I therefore uphold the no cc1se subm iss ions of th e two defence counsel in this matter as the prosecution failed to lead any iota of evidence in support" of the charges against the defendants . They are hereby ·discharged and acquitted of all the counts they are charge d with before me as is held in .the case of AITUMA v STATE (2006) 10 NWLR Part 989 page 452 . D.A .ONYEFULU JUDGE 22/10/2018 Appearances : 1.J . OGUEJIOFOR ESQ Senior State Counsel for prosecution. st C.C.IFEJIKA ESQ for the 1 defendant. O.R. BABALOLA ESQ for the 2 nd defendant. This is th e judgment deliver ed by Hon . j us tice D.J\. Onyeful u on 22/10/2018 Page 8