It was the submission of the defence counsel that the evidence of PW1 and PW3 being police officers, are essentially hearsay and inadmissible because the only evidence of an investigating officer that is admissible, in evidence of what he saw or discovered. - Kabiru V. State (2015) 9NWLR Pt 1464 P213 - Ojiako V. State (1991) 2NWLR Pt 175 P578. - Okoro V. State (1998) 14NWLR Pt 584 P181 - Ugwumba V. State (1993) 5NWLR Pt 296 P660 He argued that the motorcycle being the subject matter of the purported robbery is an essential exhibit which need to be tendered to show that there was robbery. That failure amounts to withholding evidence detrimental to the case of the prosecution. - Section 167(d) of the evidence Act - C.O.P V. Ude (2021) 12NWLR Pt 1260 P 189 - Opeyemi V State (1985) 2NWLR Pt 510 P 109 As to the offence of causing hurt while committing the offence of robbery, it is the submission of the defence counsel submitted that even if there is proof of causing hurt to the PW2, there is no credible evidence to show that the hurt was occasioned by the Defendants. The defence counsel finally concluded by submitting that in view of the prosecution’s failure to prove all the element of the offences against the Defendants, this case ought to be dismissed by discharging and acquitting the Defendants. In response to the submissions of the defence counsel, the prosecuting counsel submitted that by the evidence of PW2 and the statements of the Defendants and Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘A1’ it is apparent that the prosecution has proved all the elements of the three (3) offences against the Defendants beyond reasonable doubt. Page 6 of 22