Arguing on the offence of robbery, the prosecution counsel submitted that by the evidence of PW4 which was never controverted or contradicted as well as the contents of Exhibit G and G1, the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and urge the court to so hold. On the offence of Grievous Hurt, prosecuting counsel submitted that by the evidence of PW4, Exhibits A, G and G1 as well as evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 a matchet cut was inflicted on the shoulder of PW4 by DW3 and finally urge the court to hold that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He finally concluded by urging the court to hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and convict the Defendants as charged. Let me start by saying that it is trite law that the burden of proof in Criminal cases, always rest on the prosecution and the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is because under our adversarial system of Criminal justice, a Defendant standing trial for any offence, is constitutionally presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. - Akinlolu V. State (2015) LPELR 25986. - Smart V. State (2016) LPELR 40827. - Ibrahim V. FRN (2016) LPELR 40059. - Section 36(5) of the CFRN 1999 as amended. Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 provides that:“If the commission of a crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceeding Civil or Criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.” Page 12 of 27