' 23 I I There is nothing recovered, arms, facing cap, face mask, money, nd axe bullets and slip-ass. The 2 defendant was arrested in the mo~ning after the incident, but no investigation was carried ~ut to ascertain where he slept the night before or his whereabouts in the nd earlier hours of the day. Again, the 2 defendant has not be8in proved to be one who had the opportunity of co~mitting ~He offence. And above all, his confession is not possible having nd initially denied commission of the offence. Since the 2 defendant made his statement denying commission of the offence, I cannot fathom the basis of making a second statement confessing to the nd crime. It is therefore clear as testified to by the 2 defendant that he was tortured and beaten to make the statement. I must say that it is glaring that the 2 nd defendant was compelled to make his second statement which is Exhibit "0 1" merely to justify the release of lzuchukwu Okeke by the Police. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the confessional statement of the 2 nd defendant or confirm nd its contents which will then directly link the 2 defendant to the commission of the crime . There is a heavy burden on the prosecution to prove the charge against the 2 nd defendant beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure his conviction . This is more necessary in capital offences such as this one that involves the payment of the supreme price. The evidence that will lead to the conviction must be cogent , convincing and without reasonable doubt. Any doubt in the prosecution 's case must be resolved in favour of the 2 nd defendant. Having all these at the back of my mind , it is now necessary for me to look at the evidence adduced by the defendants to see whether they succeeded in creating reasonable doubt. In the evidence of st the 1 defendant as the D.W.1, he admitted going to the house of the P.W.1 with lzuchukwu Okeke to rob . He admitted also that the P_. W.1 Michael Okeke in the course of the robbery operation gave him machete cut on his head . The evidence the 1st defendant as the1 D.W.1 adduced before the Court is in line with Exhibits "C" and "C " as far as commission of the offence of robbery is concerned . -- ..__ _ _ Jhe only contradiction is that he excluded the 2nd defendant from ,t he robbery _ operation and implicated lzuchukwu Okeke whom he 1 t::: "'C xonerated in Exhib!t "C 1" . I must say that where the defendant ~ C/l ho ~ade a confess~onal .statement admits the offence in Court as ~ ~ \i- n the_ instant case, his guilt and blameworthiness can no longer be ~ • uestioned. On. the part of the 2nd defendant, in his evidence as h_e D.W.2 , he 1d not state th~t he participated in the robbery. The 0 l) 1tness also did not deny taking part in the robbery. 1 don't think i4: z ?