The prosecution counsel submitted that as to the offence of conspiracy, the offence can be inferred from the fact of doing things towards a common and because the crime is usually hatched with utmost secrecy. - Aduku V. State (2009) 4NCC350 Ratios 9 and 10 - Busari V. State (2015) 11NCC 43 Ratios 3 and 4 - Okafar V. State (2016) 13 NCC 395 - Salamu V. State (2015) 11 NCC 4 As to the second count charge, the prosecuting counsel submitted that by the evidence of PW2 who showed this court the scars of the injury inflicted on him by the 1st Defendant whom PW2 pointed, the prosecution has proved all the essential elements of the offence and urge the Court to so hold. On the 3rd Count charge of robbery, the prosecution counsel submitted that by the evidence of PW2, it has became very clear that a robbery incident against PW2 has taken place during which his Daylong Motorcycle was taken away forcefully by the Defendants and urge the Court to hold that the essential elements have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. - Ibrahim V. State (2015) 11 NCC 594 Ratio 5 - Emeka V. State (2015) 11 NCC 230 - Okanlawon V. State (2016) 2 NCC 469 - Kayode V. State (2016) 12 NCC 131 It was the submission of the prosecution counsel that though the defence counsel argued that the statements of the Defendants were not made voluntarily, PW3 testified to how the Defendants made their statements voluntarily in addition to the fact that the Defendants were Page 7 of 22