Under cross examination the Dw2 testified that he does not know the police officers that recorded his statements at Awada Police Station but knows the officer that recorded his statement at Onitsha . He stated I that he was arrested at Iweka Road Onitsha while coming back from Umunede · where he went for outside work. He claimed that he was the nd only person arrested and denied knowing the 2nd defendant. The 2 defendant denied confessing to the police. At close of the evidence of the defendants, written address. was called for, ordered and exchanged by the learned defence counsel and the learned prosecution counsel. st The final vvritten address of M. C. Eze Esq . of counsel to the 1 defendant and that of B. I. Nkemena Esq . of counsel to the 2 nd defendant with the final address of R. C. Aganam - Onyezeh Mrs., Senior State counsel , for the state are for ease and convenience deemed incorporated into this judgment. By operation of the provisions of Sections 139 and 135 of the Evidence Act 2011 the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants in this case committed the criminal offences as charged rests on the prosecution . See the decisions in STATE V. EMINE (1992) NWLR (pt 256) 658, YONGO V. C. 0 . P (1992) NWLR (pt 257) 36 . In the ' case of ALOR V. THE STATE (1997) 4 NWLR (pt 501) Adio J. S. C posited the law tffus : "The burden of proving the charge against an accused ,J is on the prosecution and it never shifts. See ARUNA V. THE STATE (1990) 5 NWLR (pt 155) 125 at p.137. In discharging the burden of proot the prosecution must · prove all the essential ingredients of the offence as contained in the charge'~ 7 1 :