st On the part of the counsel for the I defendant, he submitted that the confessional statement did not meet the conditions stipulated under Section 13 of the Administration of Criminal Jusi:ice Law of Anambra State, 20 l 0. He urged the court not to attach any probative value or weight to the document. He argued that any douht in a criminal trial must be resolved in favour of the accur~ed person. Reliance was placed on Igbenovia .v. the State (1981) 2 SC, 5@ 17-18. He stated that the police did not recover any of the stolen items from the defendants neither was the weapon recovered . He referred to Nwa Ebonyi .v. The State (1994) 5 NWLR (pt.345) 1.38@ 150; Diana .v. The State (1980) 8 - 11 SC 218 and Rebin .v. State (2010) 10 NWLR (pt.201) 127 @_133. He contended that the complainant by exhibit P3 stated she could not identify any of the robbers therefore the allegation was based on suspicion. He submitted that c:-iminal allegation must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. He referred to Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011. He argued that there is doubt as to whether st the 1 defendant participated in the robbery. He contended that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond teasonable doubt. It vvas further argued that PWl gave contradictory evidence. He stated that the prosecution must adduce evidence to estab1bh the ingredients of offence of armed robbery. He referred to Oseni .v. The State (2012) LPELR, 7833 , SC. Counsel conceded that the pro'.;ecution proved there was robbery but failed to prove armed robbery . He maintained that it was not pro~e~ that the 1st defendant was involved in either of the offonces. That neither the gun nor the stick used was tendered. He urged the court to discharge and acquit the 1st defendant for lack of evidence. In his own argument, learned counsel for the prosecution reminded the court that the defendants ar~-- standing trial for armed robbery which has death upon conviction as its punishment. That once the court finds that the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt; the court must impose the death sentence. He submitted that where the court finds that lesser offence of robbery was proved, the court is empowered under Section 287 Administration of Criminal Justice Law, Anambra State to convict the d1!fendants on that lesser offence. He referred and relied upon Section l (2) (a) (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act CAP R 11, Laws of the Ft::deration , 20 I 4 and Section 363, Criminal Cod.e , CAP 36, vol. 11 Laws of Anamb ra State 1991. ;;JI~ ~ 12 :