the offences alleged against them as shown by their respective statements, the burden of proving the guilt of the defendants beyond reasonable doubt, is on the prosecution as it is always desirable to have some evidence outside the confessional statement of a defendant which will make the confession probable and true. - Emmanuel V State (1994) 5SCNJ P 88 at 96 - Alarape V. State {2006} 5 LRCNCC 375 - Afolabi V. State {2014} 9 NCC 375 He argued that looking at the evidence of PW1-PW3, there is nothing outside their statements that links than to the commission of the offences alleged against them and so the case of the prosecution against the defendants, is based on suspicion and suspicion however strong cannot lead to conviction. - Shehu V. State {2012} 10 LRCNCC 173 - Igabele V. State {2006} 5LRCNCC 30 He further contended that the prosecution did not tender the motorcycle in evidence before the court nor where the arresting officers called to give evidence. In paragraph 4.10 of their adopted written address, the defence counsel further contended the 2 iron rods admitted as exhibits A and A1 tendered through PW1, was not linked to any of the defendants and as such, urged the court to discountenanced with them. It was his submission that PW3 through whom the statement of the 3 rd defendant was tendered and admitted, did not lay any foundation as to why Sgt. James Danjuma who recorded the statement could not be in Page 6 of 18