jtf '! i ' f 4 his head. They took them to SARS office for investigation . Thereafter, the defendants volunteered their statements and each of them admitted the offence. The witness tendered the statements of the defendants and the Police Investigation Report as Exhibits "C", °C 1" , "D" and "E" respectively. I However, it is clear that the P.W.3 was not at the scene of 1e:;rime. His evidence that the defendants fired many gun shots during the robbery operation is not an account of what he saw. His evidence is that he was a member of the investigating police team and was not an eye witness of the crime . Even at that, he agreed under cross examination that he did not see the defendants robbing the complainant and when the defendants were arrested , no locally made gun or dangerous weapon was found on them . In that regard , the learned counsel for the defendants in his written reply address on points of law contended that the prosecution did not prove that the defendants were armed or in company of anybody armed at the material time. Th is case is therefore one of the exceptions in that the learned counsel for the defendants has challenged the claim of the prosecution that the robbery was an armed robbery. For the prosecution to succeed in proof of the offence of armed robbery aga inst the defendants, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the parties in their final written addresses , the following ought to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to wit: (a) that there was a robbery or series of robberies ; (b) that each robbery was an armed robbery , and (c) that the defendant was among those who took part in the armed robbery. SEE : BASSEY VS . THE STATE (2012) LPELR - 7813 (SC) 1. SOWEMIMO VS . STATE (2012) 2 NWLR (PT. 1234) 400. ONllSH-~ ISIBOR VS . STATE (2002) 3 NWLR (PT. 754) 250. As I said earlier, I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution on the crucial point. I must say that I believe