----------------ISSUE 2. It is trite that in cri minal cases the burden of proof of offence lies squarely on the prosecution. The standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt. See Agu .v. State (~017) 10 NWLR (pt.1573) 171 @211 -212. /; In the instant case, the defendants were charged and arraigned for arrfied robbery which is a capital offence. The prosecution must prove it beyond reasonable doubt. In the proof of armed robbery, there are three essential ingredients that must be proved conjunctively. These are . (a) That there was a robbery incident or series of robberies; (b) That the robbery or each of the robberies was an armed robbery; ( c) That the accused person was the armed robber or one of the armed robbers. See the following cases: Sunday .v. State, supra, Usung .v. State, supra, Oseni .v. State, supra, Agugua .v. State (201 7) 10 NWLR (pt.15 73) 254 @ 288 -289 and Adoba .v. State (iOl 8) 12 NWLR (pt.1633) 236@ 253 - .254. Generally, the prosecution can prove the guilt of a person who is charged with commission of crime in the following ways : (a) Confessional Statement of the accused which has passed the requirement of the law; (b) Evidence of eye witness who saw or witnessed the commission of the alleged crime; or ( c) Circumstantial evidence which links the accused and no other person with the commission of the crime or offence charged. See the following cases : Orisa .v. State (2018) 11 NWLR (pt.1631) 453 @478 and Ayedatiwor .v. State (2018) 11 NWLR(pt.1631) 542@554. In the instant case, the prosecution appears to be relying on confessional statement of the 1st defendant and on an eye witness account. PW 1, PW2 and PW3 were th,~ victims of the crime. They were together in the night of 19/5/16 at their residence at Umuezu , Awuvo village, Enugwu Ukwu when the robbery incident occurred. I have earlier given the essential parts of their evidence. From the evidence of PWl, the robbery occurred at about 10:30pm. It ,.vas dar!-: but the robbers came with their torchlight which was on. The light from the torches reflected on the face of the 1st defendant. Before the robbery incident, she knew the 1st defendant because he was always coming to her shop to b 17 '·---