robbery as there was nothing placed as evidence to show that anything was stolen from the complainant. Defence counsel finally urge this court to discharge and acquit the defendant of all the charges against him. Let me start by saying that it is trite law that in criminal trials, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the defendant who is charged with an allegation of committing a crime. - Ajibade V. State (2013) 8 NCC 221. - Smart V. State (2016) LPELR 40827. - Akinlola V. State (2015) LPELR 25986. The rationale behind this responsibility upon the prosecution is derived from the constitutional provision of presumption of innocence in favour of a defendant guaranteed by the provisions of Section 36 (5) of the Constitutional of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 199 as amended, and the provision of Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011 as amended. To prove their case against the defendant in respect of the offences of Criminal Conspiracy and Robbery punishable under Sections 60 (1) and 287 (1) of the Sokoto State Penal Code Law 2019 with which the defendant was arraigned, the prosecution called 4 witnesses and tendered 2 exhibits marked as Exhibit ‘A’ and ‘A1’ which comprised of the Hausa and English translated versions of the defendant’s extra-judicial statement. As to the offence of Criminal Conspiracy, it is trite law that in a charge of Criminal Conspiracy, all that is required or Page 7 of 14