2. Whether in view of the totality of evidence at the trial , the prosecution has discharged the onerous burden of proof placed on it under the law, thereby proving the case against both or any of the defendants beyond reasonable doubt. Pertinently, I would resolve the issues seriatim. ARGUMENTS nd The learned counsel for the 2 defendants stated that the defendants are standing trial for armed robbery. He subm itted that the prosecution must prove the three ingredients as hande·d down in the case of Sunday .v. State (20 I 0) All FWLR (pt.548) 874. He went on to review the prosecution ' s evidence and came to the conclusion by conceding that the PW I , PW2 and PW3 were robbed . Coun sel contended that the identities of the robbers were not proved . He argued that exhibits PI and D 1 as well as the oral evidence of DWI ~:howed that evidence on the participation of the nd 2 defendant was contradictory. R elying on the case of Musa .v. State (2009) All FWLR (pt.492) I 020 @ I 023 , counse l submi tted that contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution that will be fat 1l must be su bstantial. He maintained that the nd only evidence that the prosecution laid against the 2 defendant is exhibit PI .He nd argued that there are contradictio ns with respect to whether the 2 defendant participated in the robbery or not. That this contradiction goes to the root of the cas;;:. He submitted that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution . He referred to Section 135 (I) of the Evidence Act 2011. Reliance was placed on Usung .v. State (2009) All FWLR (pt.462) 1203 . He contended that the only nexus between the crime and the 2 nd defendant was exhibit P 1 which was tendered by the maker of exhibit D 1. That the implication of e:;vJ1ibit D1 and exhibit Pl created doubt as to whether the 2 nd defendant actually took part in the robbery . He argued that the doubt should be resolved in favour of nd the 2 defendant. He referred to Abdullahi .v. State (2008) All FWLR (pt.432) 1047@ 1064. The court was urged to hold that the prosecution failed to prove its case against th,e 2 nd defendant. :) ~ 11 -