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