3

,1/

//

~
I

I

I

the 1st issue for determination prepared by the learned counsel for
nd
the prosecution. The 2 issue for determination culled by the
learned counsel for the prosecution in his final written address
stands on its own . Any of the sets of issue for determination
formulated by the parties is apt, relevant and germane to
determine this charge. I shall adopt the sets of issues for
determination in the consideration of this charge but for easy
understanding , I shall address the sole issue for determination as
follows :From the circumstances of this case and the
totality of the evidence adduced, can the
prosecution be said to have proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the defendants conspired
and committed the offence of armed robbery?
The sole issue for determination in this charge is, from the
circumstances of this case and the totality of the evidence
adduced , can the prosecution be said to have proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the defendants conspired and committed
the offence of armed robbery? The facts of this case fall within a
narrow compass . It is not being disputed as testified by the P.W.1
and P.W .2 that on the 6th day of July, 2007 at Ebenasa Umunri
Amichi in Nnewi South Local Government Area of Anambra State
some people robbed them in their compound and in the process
stole the sum of N120,000.00. This is so because the learned
counsel for the defendants in his cross examination and written
addresses did not attack the claim of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 that
there was a: robbery in their house in the early hours of the
morning . It is not surprising because in such circumstances the
crucial issue is not ordinarily whether or not there was robbery and
the robbery was an armed robbery. In most cases, the controversy
always rages over whether the defendants alleged as the actual
perpetrators of the offence charged were the persons who were
seen committing the offence. In this case, it is glaring from the
. totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses that
the P.W .1 and P.W.2 the victims of the alleged armed robbery are
the only eye witnesses of the commission of the crime that testified
for the prosecution. I say so because the P.W.3 in his evidence
claimed that the matter is a case of armed robbery because the
defendants fired many gun shots during the robbery operation . He
testified also that when they went to Otolo Police Station to get the
st
defendants; they saw the 1 defendant with plaster of wound on

Select target paragraph3