i· i { .i I / .; ➔ ~ 13 l doubting the evidence of the P.W.1 and P.W .2 and not believing them on th is crucial point is that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the robbery at the home of the P.W .1 and P.W .2 at Ebenasa Umunri Village, Amichi on the ih day of July, 2007 was an armed robbery . It follows that the prosecution has succes~fully proved beyond reasonable doubt if un-contradicted that there was a robbery in the early hours of the ih day of July, 2007 in the house of the P.\N.1 and P.W.2 at Ebenasa Umun ri Vill age, Amich i. However, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the robbery was an armed robbery . ~ ~ C( ,.___ 0 Co ming to the last crucial point, it is clear from the evidence of the P.W .1 and P.W .2 that the defendants were not arrested at the scene . From the evidence of the P.W.1, it is glaring that he nd claimed that he identified the 1st defendant at the scene but the 2 nd person· he mentioned was not linked directly to the 2 defendant. The P.W .2 in her evidence alleged that she identified the two defendants at the scene when she testified that she saw them that day and the 1st defendant wh ile being injured called the name of the 2nd defendant and asked him why he was leaving him there to die . By the evidence of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 they have fixed the defendants at the locus criminis and if their evidence is accepted and believed , then the defendants were among the perpetrators of the crime . I will ffrst of all consider the circumstances in which the P.W .1 and P.W .2 claimed that they saw the 1st and 2nd defendants at the scene. By the evidence of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 the incident occurred between 2 to 3 am . From their evidence it will easily be inferred that their house was dark. Apart from this , by the tenor of the evidence of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 they could not see the people that entered their room until the P.W.1 pointed his touch light. As a matter of fact, the P.W.1 admitted under cross examination that the room was very dark. Even when the P.W .1 pointed his touch light on the person , he could not identify him because he was wearing a face cap. The P.W.2 in her testimony added that the person used something to cover his face and thereby suggesting that he was wearing a mask. It was at this stage that a fight ensued between the P.W.1 and the person . ·c ( According to the P.W.1, it was while they were fighting that he -1: removed the cap the man was putting on to cover his face and (JJ realised that it was Azuka and called him by his name. The P.W.2 in her evidence claimed that her husband removed the thing the .... . ,.. r person used in covering his face and saw that it was Azuka and called him by his name and they started fighting . Since it was the >-o, '- I I J