,. truth . of it. Adding the rI above finding to the earlie.r finding that the 1st defendant had in his statement to the police at Awada Police Station in Exhibit J2 stated that he picked the driver's licence at the Centre Park where h.e sleeps and being that apart from the 1st defendant being found to be in possession. of the alleged driving ·licence there is no othe1t evidence linking the defendants to the crime, this court seems to be of view that . there is no prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants infact committed the offence of armed robbery. Let me make it expressly clear that there is no doubt that the admissions of the defendants that they were caught for stealing fire woods seems to put the defendant in picture as criminals with possibility of being the armed robbers that attacked and robbed the Pwl on the 8/2/2015, but our criminal jurisprudence placed a burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt ori the µrosecution of · the guilty of the defendants and not burden of proof possibility or being more probable as it is in civil matters. I think it must be further made clear that the evidence of 1st defendant in this court on 26/10/2016 on how he was arrested by the police is totally inconsistent with his statements to the police in Exhibit · J2 and even Exhibit G. I find the 1st defendant to have lied in his evidence before this court. However, the fact that a defendant lied is not a proof of his guilt. The fact that defendant's lied does not also t ,J discharge the prq~ecution of the onerous/burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt that defendant committed the alleged offence. Nnamani J. S. C in OMOGODO V. THE STATE (1981) 12 NSCC 119 at 126 stated the law aptly thus : 16