Learned _Gou~sel conceded to the submissions of the defendants' prosecuti?n is expected to prove the ingredients of the offence of ~:::l;~:~the a~ c;tated m Sunday ,v. State supra , and O sem. .v. State supra ery He contended that by the ·d . f h ' · robbe w . ev1 ence o t e prosecution witnesses, the offence of ry as e stabhshed. That the prosecution equally established that;there was robbery, and that the defendants took part in the robbery and at the lime of the rob~~ry, t~e defendants were armed. Learned counsel contended that PWl P0st tively identified the defendants as being among the four man robbery gang That the evidence of PWl was con-oborated by PW2) PW3 and PW4. He argue~ st that the attempt by the 1 defendant to resile from his confessional statement failed by virtue of his exhibit D 1 wherein he admitted making the confessional statement. :'hat the defence of alibi raised by the 1st defendant came too late in the day in that it was not raised timeously and at the earliest opportunity to enable the police to investigate same. Having not done so, in his exhibits P2 and Dl, the defence of st alibi cannot avail tµe l defendant. Reliance was placed on the cases of Udo .v. State (2016) 12 NWLR(pt.1525) l; Ude .v. State (2016) 14 NWLR(pt.1531) 122. Lea111ed counsel further contended that by the oral testiip.ony of the 1st defendant and exhibit "D l" in which he exonerated the 2nd defenqant and the fact that the 2nd defendant rested his case on that of the prosecution, the .2nd defendant subjected himself to the court's evaluation of the evidence of prosecution witnesses. That the PW 1 adduced evidence to show that she recognized the two defendants out of those that robbed her and her sisters,, her evidence remained uncontradicted by the 2 nd defendant in the light of exhibits P2 and "D l" . Counsel went on to postulate that the robbery operation could not have been successful without the use of an offensive weapon that induced foar in the victims. He referred to the evidence of DWl, exhibit P2 and PW4 by which it was made clear that the defendants used a stick to carry out the operation. It was argued that the stick induced fear and apprehension in the minds of pw·1, PW2 and PW3 making them to surrender to the defendants. It was further stated that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 to the effect that the defendants ordered them to lie face down, marched on their backs and threatened to harm them was akin to vioLence. Counsel urged the court to hold that the prosecuticn proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and to pronounce a verdict 0 "guilty" against the defendants a:; well as enter the desired sentence. · 13