Armed Robbery

The ingredients of the offence of armed robbery are:
1. That there was a robbery or series of robberies.
2. That each robbery was an armed robbery and
3. That the accused was the robber or among those who participated in the robbery.
See: Bozin vs The State (1985) 2 NWLR (pt.8) 465; Nwachukwu vs The State (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.11) 218; Afolabi vs The State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 584.

At the Court below the Appellant's counsel submitted correctly on the authority of BOZIN v. THE STATE (1985) 2 NWLR (pt. 8) 465; THE STATE v SALAWU (2011) 8 NWLR (pt.1279) 580; BELLO v THE STATE (2007) 10 NWLR (pt.1043) 564, that the following facts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt for the charge of the offence of armed robbery to be sustained against the Appellant to warrant his conviction and sentence. That is
"i. there was robbery
ii. the robbery was an armed robbery: and
iii. the accused person took part in robbery."
The learned Appellant's counsel further submitted correctly that Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011 enjoins the prosecution (herein the respondent) to prove each of the 3 ingredients, aforestated, beyond reasonable doubts. See BAKARE v. THE STATE (1987) 1 NWLR (pt.52) 579; BANJO v. THE STATE (2013) 38 WRN 1: SHOFOLAHAN v. THE STATE (2013) 49 WRN 172.

it is to be said that to sustain the offence contrary to Section 1(2) of the Armed Robbery and Firearms Act Cap R11, Laws of the Federation 2004, the prosecution has to establish the following:-
1. That there was a robbery.
2. That the robbery was an armed robbery, and
3. That the accused person took part in the robbery.
I rely on the cases of Okudo v. The State (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1234) 209 at 233; State v. Salawu (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 614) 1 at 34.

In the matter of the offence of Criminal conspiracy levelled against the appellant, it is to be reiterated that to sustain the charge which is pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Robbery and Firearms Act, CAP R11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 the prosecution has the bounden duty to establish the following essential elements which are thus:-
(i) An agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done, some illegal act or some act which is not illegal by illegal means.
(ii) Where the agreement is other than an agreement to commit an offence, that some acts besides the agreement was done by one or more of the parties in furtherance of the argument.
(iii) Specifically that each of the accused individually participated in the conspiracy. See State v. Salawu (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 614); 1 at pg. 29; Adekunle v. The State (1989) 12 SCNJ 184; 1989 5 NWLR (Pt. 125) 505; Nwosu v. The State (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 218) 916; (2004) 15 NWLR (Pt. 897) 466 at 486.

It is a given principle that in establishing the offence of armed robbery the prosecution's evidence need not necessarily be the direct evidence of an eye witness as same could also be either circumstantial evidence or the confessional statement of the accused. See Onyenye v. State (2012) LPELR-7866 (SC) Lori v. State (1980) 8-11 SC 81.

Parties herein agree and rightly too, for authorities on the principle are legion, that to successfully establish the charge of armed robbery against the appellant the respondent has to prove beyond reasonable doubt:-
(i) That there was infact a robbery
(ii) That the robbery was an armed robbery
(iii) That the appellant took part in the robbery. See The State V. Isioko (2013) LPELR-20521 (SC), Afolalu V. The State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.220) 554, Tirimisiyu Adebayo V. State (2014) LPELR-22988 (SC) and Suberu V. The State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 586.

While for the offence of armed robbery, the ingredients to be proved are:
(a) That there was robbery or series of robberies.
(b) That the robbery or each of the robberies was an armed robbery.
(c) That each of the accused persons was part or had taken part in the armed robbery or robberies. See
Bozin v State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 8) 465;
Ikemson v State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 110) 455.

It is to be noted that to prove the offence of armed robbery as charged, the following ingredients of the offence must be established either directly or through circumstantial evidence and they are thus:
a) That there was a robbery or series of robberies
b) That the robbery was an armed robbery
c) That the accused participated in the robbery.
The important condition for these essential elements is that all three ingredients must be complete none excepting. It is not enough that two of the ingredients are in place while one or two are absent, They all must co-exist for the offence to be well founded and said to have been established or proved. See Tanko v The State(2008) 16 NWLR (Pt.1114) 639; Bolanle v The State (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt. 925) 431.

It is to be noted that to prove the offence of armed robbery as charged, the following ingredients of the offence must be established either directly or through circumstantial evidence and they are thus:
a) That there was a robbery or series of robberies
b) That the robbery was an armed robbery
c) That the accused participated in the robbery.

It is well settled law, that in order to prove the offence of robbery, contrary to Section 1(2) (b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap 38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 (as amended) the prosecution is duty bound to prove the following ingredients of the offence namely:-
(a) That there was a robbery or series of robberies.
(b) That the robber or any of the robbers was armed with offensive weapon.
(c) That the accused person or persons was/were the ones responsible of committing the offence.
See State v Adedamola Bello & Ors (1989)1 CLRN 370; Bozin vs The State (1986)7 SC (Reprint); Balogun vs AG of Ogun State (2001) FWLR (pt.780)1144.

With greatest respect to the learned justices of the Court of Appeal, to secure a conviction for armed robbery, all that the prosecution must prove are:-
(i) That there was an armed robbery;
(ii) That the accused person or persons was/were armed during the armed robbery or in company with someone amongst them who was so armed.
Once the prosecution proves the above ingredients beyond reasonable doubt, their failure to tender the offensive weapon or the arms, cannot result in acquittal of the accused person(s) because of the possibility of the accused person doing away with the offensive weapon they used, after the commission of the offence in order to exculpate himself from criminal responsibility or to escape detection. See the cases of Martin vs State (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt.481)355; Okosi v. AG Bendel State (1989)1 NWLR (Pt.100) 642; Olayinka v. State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt.1040) 561 SC.
I must also stress here, that there is no principle of law which requires the prosecution to mandatorily tender the weapons used in an alleged robbery in order to establish the guilt of the accused person. In fact, in Olayinka's case (supra), it was held that since there was no assertion from the prosecution witness that any weapon was recovered from the accused, proof of use of any weapon at the alleged robbery operation was not necessary to establish.

The settled law is that in order to obtain conviction on the offence of armed robbery like in any other criminal matters the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt as required and provided by Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended) See Woolmington v DPP (1935) AC 462; Uche v State (2015) 4-5 SC (Pt.11) 140 at 157; State v Oladotun(2011) 5 SC (Pt.11) 133; Sani v. State (2015) 6/7 SC (pt 11)1 at 17.

It is settled law, that in order to establish the offence of armed robbery, contrary to Section 1(2)(b) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap 398 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 (as amended) the prosecution must prove the under listed salient ingredients of the offence which include:-
(a) That there was a robbery or series of robbery incident(s)
(b) That the robbers or any of the robbers was armed with offensive weapons
(c) That the accused person(s) was/were the ones responsible of committing the offence
See State vs Adedamola Bello & Ors (1989) 1 CLRN 370; Bozin vs The State (1985) 7 SC (Reprint) 276; Balogun v AG Ogun State (2001) FWLR (Pt.78) 1144 at 1160.

Further still and to show that the prosecution is not duty bound to produce the knife, there is no legal obligation on the prosecution to produce or lender the knife in evidence The lower Court was clear and could not be faulted on this point when it held at page 148 of the record and said:-
"Let me mention here and now, that it is not the law, that the firearms, or the offensive weapons used must be tendered in proof by prosecution to commission of armed robbery. This issue has since been settled by the Supreme Court in case of Fatai Olayinka V. The State, 30 NSCQB 149 at pages 162 – 163."
It is a settled principle therefore that the failure of the prosecution to tender the knife used by the appellant in attacking PW1 did not in any way water down the credible and unchallenged evidence that the appellant committed armed robbery against PW1 on 23/12/2006.

In describing the offence of robbery, this Court had this to say in the case of Ebeinwe V. The State under reference supra at page 224:-
" - Robbery is theft or extortion by force or inducing of fear by coercion --. Therefore theft in all its ramifications is robbery if in order to commit the theft or in committing the theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft the offender/accused for that end voluntarily causes or attempts to cause any person's death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or hurt or instant hurt or of wrongful restraint."
Judicial guidance was given also by this Court in Fatayi Olayinka V. The State, 30 NSCQR 149 at pages 162 – 163. It is clear from the foregoing principle that where it is shown that in forcefully taking away the property of another, the assailant either hurts or attempts to put his victim in a state of fear or apprehension of eminent harm or death or restraint, an armed robbery has taken place.

It is well established in a long line of authorities that, to sustain a conviction in a charge of armed robbery, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients, which are very essential and mandatory:-
a) That there was a robbery;
b) That the robbery was carried out with the use of offensive weapons;
c) That the accused person participated in the robbery.
It is imperative to say that all of the above requirements must be consecutively proved beyond reasonable doubt before a conviction can be sustained. See Ogudo V. State (2011) 18 NWLR Pt. 1278) 1 at 32. See also Bozin V. State (1985) 2 NWLR (Part 8) 465.

To state it another way is to say that what the prosecution needs do to discharge the burden of proof for a charge of conspiracy and armed robbery was to show in keeping with Section 135 Evidence Act 2011 thus:-
(a) There was a robbery or series of robberies,
(b) The accused was one of the robbers or the robber
(c) That the accused or one of the robbers was armed.
I referred to Onafowokan v The State (1987) SCNJ 328; Ozaki v The State (1990)1 NWLR (Pt.124) 92 at 115; Ikem v State (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.2) 378; Nwachukwu v. The State (1985) 11 NWLR (Pt.11) 218; Adeyemi v The State (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt.170) 679; Cyracus Ogidi & Ors v The State (2005) 1 SCNJ 67 at 85-86.

The trial Court also justified the basis of finding of guilt for the second charge of armed robbery, see pages 71-78 of the record. The ingredients of the offence of armed robbery are that: (i) That there was a robbery or a series of robberies; (ii) That each robbery was an armed robbery; (iii) That appellant was one of those who took part in the robberies. See: ALABI VS THE STATE (1993) 7 NWLR (pt. 307) 511 at 523, where this Court highlighted and restated the essential ingredients of the offence of armed robbery. Those elements above have to co-exist and established beyond reasonable doubt. See: AWOSIKA VS THE STATE (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1198) 40 at 71-73." Per Peter-Odili, JSC. (Page. 27, Paragraphs. B-E).
In OSUAGWU vs. THE STATE (2016) LPELR-40836 (SC), this Court, Per Nweze, JSC, (Pages 31-33, Paragraphs. F-E) referenced the exposition of Niki Tobi JSC (Blessed memory) in FATAI OLAYINKA vs. THE STATE, 30 NSCQR 149, 172 – 173, Niki Tobi JSC (supra) observed that: –
"What makes an offence under the Act, in which the accused persons are charged, one of the armed robbery is the use of firearms as offensive weapon. Now the proof of corpus delicit (sic) in an armed robbery case consist (sic) of proof that property has been fraudulently taken by an assault or by putting the fear of life or bodily injury into the victim. It may be proved by both direct and circumstantial evidence. For an act to constitute robbery, there must be that experience by the victim of fear and intimidation brought about by apprehension of possible violence to (sic) person before the robbery. The fear of possible injury instilled on the victim must of necessity precede the taking."
See also OTTI VS THE STATE (1991) 8 NWLR (pt.207) 103, 118; NWOMUKORO VS THE STATE (1995) 1 NWLR (pt. 372) 432, 443; AJILOYE VS THE STATE (1983) 6 SC 11; OKOBI VS THE STATE (1990) 6 NWLR (pt. 155) 125.

The offences of culpable homicide punishable with death and armed robbery with which the Appellant was charged, sentenced and convicted are offences of severe penal consequences. The severity of the two offences are such that the law provides for what the prosecution must prove to justify conviction on the two different, but severe offences of stiff penal consequences. The essential ingredients of robbery as constituted under Section 2(1) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap. R11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 are that:-
"(i) There was robbery or series of robberies;
(ii) That each robbery was an armed robbery;
(iii) That the Accused person was one of those who took part in the robbery."

In this journey to prove the essential elements of the offence of armed robbery the prosecution is expected to establish the following:-
a) That there was a robbery or a series of robberies.
b) That the accused was one of those who took part in the armed robbery.
c) That at the time of committing the robbery, the accused was armed with firearm or an offensive weapon or was in the company of any person who was so armed.
See Section 139 of Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended); Okoh v State (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt. 736) 443; Ajayi v State (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt. 711) 1457 at 1490; Olatinwo v State (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 685) 312 at 333; Anekwe v State (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt. 744) 92 at 106; Adeleke v State (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt. 722) 1652 at 1673; Attah v State (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt. 540) 1224 at 1256; Afolalu v The State (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt. 538) 812 at 832: Daro Pale v State(2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 696) 605 at 616.

In this journey to prove the essential elements of the offence of armed robbery the prosecution is expected to establish the following:-
a) That there was a robbery or a series of robberies.
b) That the accused was one of those who took part in the armed robbery.
c) That at the time of committing the robbery, the accused was armed with firearm or an offensive weapon or was in the company of any person who was so armed.
See Section 139 of Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended); Okoh v State (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt. 736) 443; Ajayi v State (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt. 711) 1457 at 1490; Olatinwo v State (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 685) 312 at 333; Anekwe v State (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt. 744) 92 at 106; Adeleke v State (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt. 722) 1652 at 1673; Attah v State (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt. 540) 1224 at 1256; Afolalu v The State (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt. 538) 812 at 832: Daro Pale v State(2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 696) 605 at 616.

Again to be said is that it is of no moment that the empty shells of bullet or bullet marks were not seen. Also that even if the gun used for the offence was not tendered before the trial Court would not exonerate the accused persons in the light of the cogent eyewitness evidence adduced. See Fatai Olayinka v The State (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 373) 163; Abiodun v The State (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt. 700) 1257 at 1269; Babarinde v State (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt. 717) 600 at 632; Alor v State (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt. 445) 762; Dibie v State (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt.893) 257.

The law is trite that in order to secure a conviction for the offence of armed robbery, the prosecution is only duty bound to prove;
(a) That there was an armed robbery.
(b) That the accused was armed in company with any person so armed; and
(c) that the accused while with arm or arms or in company with person so armed, participated in the robbery.
Once the prosecution proves the aforementioned elements of the offence of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt, its failure to tender the arms or offensive weapon can not lead to his acquittal because ofthe possibility of the accused person doing away with the arms or weapon after the commission of the crime in order to exculpate himself from detection or arrest. See Olayinka v State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1040) 561; Okosi vs AG Bendel State (1989) 1 NWLR (pt. 100) 642.
I must emphasise here that there is no principle of law that insists that the prosecution must tender weapons used in the alleged robbery in order to prove the guilt of an accused person. The tendering of the weapons used depends on the circumstance of the case, for instance, where the prosecution stated that any weapon used in the robbery was recovered. See Olayinka's case (supra). This therefore knocks the bottom of the fact relied upon by the Court below, that PW3 did not tender any empty shell or gun at the prosecution of the case. See also Abiodun vs The State (2013) All FWLR (pt. 700) 1257 at 1269 Para E.

The law is trite that in order to secure a conviction for the offence of armed robbery, the prosecution is only duty bound to prove;
(a) That there was an armed robbery.
(b) That the accused was armed in company with any person so armed; and
(c) that the accused while with arm or arms or in company with person so armed, participated in the robbery.

With greatest respect to the eminent and learned Justices of the Court of appeal, the alleged conflict it hinged its reasoning on to set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent was not material at all. The issue of who shot amongst the robbers is not material. The essential ingredient of the offence of armed robbery under Section 1 (2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provision) Act is simply that at the time of the robbery assault the accused or any was carrying arms or in company of any person carrying such arms or any offensive weapons.
Whether such arms was used on the victim or not, is also not material at all provided offensive weapon was proved to have been held by any of accused person at the material time. Whether there was shooting or not or whether the respondent carried it or triggered the shot or even if it was not shot at all is immaterial. The important thing is that the holding of such arms did or would obviously cause violence or fear of injury on the victim against him or his property and for that reason he (the victim) surrendered such property for fearing that he will be injured.

In this instant case, there is the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the 1st Accused and the 3rd accused carried guns, and that one of them shot the gun. These witnesses are direct victims of crime who testified on the use of the guns. Slightest use of the offensive weapon makes the respondent culpable. The offence of robbery with firearms is complete or committed once at the time of the commission of the offence of robbery the accused carried arms one or any of them is said to be carrying firearms as an offensive weapon or is armed. See DPP vs Hyude (1989) 1 All E R 649. In this instant case, evidence abounds that the 1st Accused and the 3rd Accused (now at large) were carrying guns and that such guns were even shot during the robbery operation.

In this instant case, the appellant was charged and tried for the commission of the offence of armed robbery, contrary to Section 1 (1) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, Cap 389 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990. In order to establish the offence of armed robbery under the above mentioned provisions, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients of that offence which include the followings:-
(i) That there was robbery or series of robbery.
(ii) That the accused participated in the robbery.
(iii) That at time of the robbery the accuse was armed with offensive weapon or was in company of someone who was so armed.
See the case of Bozin v The State (1985) 2 NWLR (pt. 8) 465; Alabi v The State (1993) 7 NWLR (pt 307) 511 at 523, Bello v The State (2007) 10 NWLR (pt 1043) 564 Chukwuka Ogudo v The State (2011) LPELR 860 (SC). To obtain conviction, the prosecution must prove all the ingredients listed above, beyond reasonable doubt.

On what the prosecution should do to succeed in a charge or offence of conspiracy to rob and armed robbery, the ingredients of the offences are thus:-
a) That there was an agreement or confederacy, between the convict and others to commit the offence of robbery.
b) That in furtherance of the agreement or confederacy, the accused took part in the commission of the offence of robbery or series of robberies.
c) That the robberies or each of the robbery was an armed robbery. See Yusuf v. State (2008) All FWLR (Pt.405) 1731.

Furthermore anyone in the company of armed robbers, though unarmed is treated as armed under Section 1(2)(a) supra, and is convicted and sentenced as if he was also armed when the robbery was carried out.

To succeed in the offence of armed robbery the prosecution must establish that:
(a.) there was a robbery;
(b.) it was carried out with the use of offensive weapons; and
(c.) the accused person participated in the robbery. See Ogudo v. State (2011) 12 SC (Pt.i) p.71.
All of the above must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before a conviction can be sustained.

To establish armed robbery, as Appellant's counsel correctly submitted, the prosecution must establish the following facts beyond reasonable doubt. That is
a. There was a robbery or series of robbery incidents;
b. The robbers were armed;
c. The accused was one of the robbers who committed the robbery.
See:BOZIN v. THE STATE (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.8) 465 at 469; THE STATE v. ADEMOLA (1989) CLRN 370. Accordingly, it is imperative that the prosecution must prove the participation of the accused in the alleged armed robbery, and the identity of the accused is therefore in issue.

To succeed the prosecution must prove the following elements of the offence of armed robbery under Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms Act beyond reasonable doubt.
(a) There was a robbery or series of robberies;
(b) The robbery or series of robberies were carried out with offensive weapons;
(c) The accused person participated in the robbery. See Ogudo v State (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) p.1 Bello v State (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) p. 564, Alabi v State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 307) p. 511, Suberu v State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1197) p. 586.

The ingredients of the offence of armed robbery have been stated in a plethora of decisions of this Court. They are:
(a) that there was a robbery or series of robberies;
(b) that each of the robberies was an armed robbery;
(c) that the accused person was the robber or one of those who participated in the armed robbery.
See: Bozin v. The State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.8) 465 @ 469 H; Bello v. The State (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1043) 564 @ 588 589 H A; Agboola v. The State (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt.1366) 619 @ 641 F G.

As regards the offence of armed robbery, to succeed the Prosecution must lead evidence to prove the following ingredients namely:-
i. There was robbery or series of robberies.
ii. Each robbery was armed robbery.
iii. The accused participated in the armed robbery.

This Court has in a plethora of authorities held that for the prosecution to succeed against an accused person in a charge of armed robbery, it has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that:
(i) there was a robbery or a series of robberies
(ii) that each robbery was an armed robbery
(iii) that the appellant was one of those who took part in the armed robbery or robberies.
Thus, it is not enough for the prosecution to prove that there was armed robbery, it must go further and establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused/appellant had participated in the robbery. SeeBozin v The State (1985) LPELR -799 (SC), (1985) 2 NWLR (pt 8) P.465, The State v Salawu (2011) LPELR – 8252 (SC), (2011) 18 NWLR (pt 1279) 580, Olatinwo v The State (2013) 8 NWLR (pt 1355) 126.

In a charge of armed robbery, the prosecution is expected to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the under mentioned elements, namely:-
(I) that there was a robbery
(II) that the robbers or any of them was armed at the time of the robbery; and
(III) that the accursed person or persons was/were the armed robber(s)
SeeIKARIA v STATE (2012) SCNJ 325 at 34, Agbodeon vs State (2000)5, OLAYINKA v State (2007)9 NWLR (pt 1040)561.

It is now well settled that in our criminal jurisprudence, in order for the prosecution to succeed whenever the commission of a crime is in issue against an accused person, he is under a duty to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It must however be noted that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all shadow of doubt. I need to emphasize that in criminal proceedings, the onus is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and this would be achieved by ensuring that all the necessary and vital ingredients of the charge or charges are proved by evidence. See YONGO VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (1992) LPELR-3528 (SC), (1992) 4 SCNJ 113, OGUNDIYAN VS THE STATE (1991) LPELR-2333 (SC), (1991) 3 NWLR (pt.181) 519, AKIGBE VS IOG (1959) 4 FSC 203, ONUBOGU VS THE STATE (1974) 9 SC 1 at 20, BABUGA VS THE STATE (1996) LPELR-701 (SC), (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt.460) 279.

The offence for which the Appellant is charged is a very serious one, and by virtue of Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, the offence must be strictly proved by cogent and convincing evidence that leaves no iota or doubts or skepticism in the minds of the parties and members of the public, and I dare say this Court. The section provides:
135. Standard of proof where commission of crime is in issue; and burden where guilt of crime etc. asserted.
(1) 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.
(2) The burden of proving that any person has been guilty of a crime or wrongful act is, subject to Section 139 of this Act, on the person who asserts it, whether the commission of such act is or is not directly in issue in the action.

In order to establish or prove the above ingredients of the offence of armed robbery, the prosecution's evidence may flow from any of the following ways: –
(i) The confessional statement of the accused which has been duly tested, proven and admitted in evidence.
(ii) By circumstantial evidence which is complete, cogent and unequivocal and leads to an irresistible conclusion that the accused and no other person committed the offence charged.
(iii) By direct evidence of eye witnesses who actually saw the accused committing the offence.

The essential ingredients of the offence of armed robbery which prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt to secure the conviction of an accused person include the following: –
1. that there was indeed a robbery or series of robberies;
2. that the robbers were armed with dangerous weapons; and
3. that the accused person was the robber or one of the robbers. See Afolalu v. The State (2010) 16 NWLR (pt. 1220) 584, Emeka v. The State (2014) LPELR – 23020 (SC), (2014) 13 NWLR (pt. 1425) 614, Musa Ikaria v. The State (2012) LPELR – 15533 (SC) (2014) 1 NWLR (pt. 1389) 639, Agugua v. The State (2017) LPELR – 42021 (SC).

By Section 1(2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act 1990, armed robbery takes place where at the time of the robbery, the offender is armed with any firearms or any offensive weapon or is in company with any person so armed at or immediately before or immediately after the robbery, and the said offender wounds or uses any personal violence to any person.

Also to be noted is that the fact that no weapons used in the robbery was tendered before the Court of trial is not fatal to the prosecution's case just as the two Courts below found as the effect of the absence of such weapons used is ascertained in circumstances of a given case and in the case at hand, it has no negative impact. See Olayinka v State (2007) 2 NCC 507 Alor v. State (1997) SC 76.

To go back on track, it is to be restated that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the standard required is Proof beyond reasonable doubt pursuant to Section 138 of the Evidence Act. That would not be different herein in the two Court charge of conspiracy and armed robbery on which the appellant and his co-accused were charged at the trial Court. In proof of armed robbery, the three essential ingredients that must be proved, I dare say conjunctively are:
1. That there was a robbery or series of robberies
2. That each robbery was on armed robbery.
3. That the accused took part in the robbery or robberies.
I place reliance on the case of Onyenye v. The State (2012) NCC 304 at 310 – 311.

Indeed, the Court below correctly stated the position that there is no law insisting that the prosecution must always tender weapon or gun used in a robbery in order to establish its case. It largely depends on the facts and circumstances of each given case. See; Olayinka vs The State (2002).

It is trite law that for the prosecution to achieve success in proof of the offence of Armed robbery, the following essential ingredients must be proved beyond reasonable doubt;
(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 was the armed robber or one of the armed robbers.

By the provisions of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act, offence of armed robbery can be established once credible evidence is led by the prosecution to show that the accused person used weapon(s) to cause threat or fear on his victim or victims. Once credible evidence adduced by the prosecution establishing that weapon was used in the robbery operation and the accused failed to debunk such evidence in his defence, the accused can be rightly convicted as done by the trial Court in this instant case.

This short contribution is limited only to an affirmation of the position of the Court of Appeal that the Prosecution need not tender the weapons used in perpetrating the offence of armed robbery. That Court, in my view, was right in that conclusion for there is no principle of law requiring the tendering of the weapons of an alleged robbery to establish the guilt of an accused person, State v. Ajayi (2016) LPELR-40663 (SC) 51-52, B-F; Olayinka v. The State [2007] 9 NWLR (pt.1040) 561, 514; Gbadamosi v. The State [1991] 6 NWLR (Pt.196) 182.
In effect, once there is cogent, reliable and authentic oral and documentary evidence which the Court believes and admits, failure to tender the weapons employed in the robbery cannot be prejudicial to the case of the prosecution, Gbadamosi v The State (supra); State v Ajayi (supra). Essentially, therefore, the character and circumstances of the case would determine whether the presence of the weapon was imperative or not, Olayinka v The State (supra).

I earlier on alluded to what is required of the prosecution to establish the guilt of an accused person in a charge of armed robbery.
Nowhere in the law is it stated that the prosecution should tender weapons used in the robbery. Weapons used in armed robberies are usually easily disposable items as in this case, clubs, stick, cutlasses. The circumstances of robberies do not require the tendering of weapons used by the robbers, all that is required is that the robber was armed when he robbed the victim. The prosecution does not need to tender the weapons used in an armed robbery.

In a case of armed robbery, all that is required of the prosecution is to prove that there was an armed robbery and the appellant was one of the armed robbers.Tendering recovered items from on armed robbery; is desirable but not mandatory, especially when there is damaging eyewitness evidence that the appellant was one of the armed robbers.

there is nowhere in the law that the prosecution must tender weapons used in a robbery attack before an accused person can be convicted. That is not to say that the weapons, if recovered, cannot be tendered.It can be tendered but where it is not tendered, it cannot be a ground to set aside a conviction arising from such evidence.In The State v. Odunayo Ajayi (2016) LPELR-40663 (SC), I made the point that once there is cogent, reliable and authentic oral and documentary evidence which the Court admits and believes, failure to tender the weapons employed in the robbery cannot be prejudicial to the case of the prosecution. See also Gbadamosi v. The State(1991) 6 NWLR (pt. 196) 182, Olayinka v. The State (2007) 9 NWLR (pt. 1040) 561, Agugua v. The State (2017), LPELR-42021 (SC).

The law is trite that to secure a conviction in a charge of armed robbery against an accused person, the prosecution must prove that
(1). There was a robbery, or series of Robberies.
(2). That the accused person or persons were armed with offensive weapons.
(3). That the accused person participated or was one of the robbers.
Once the above ingredients are proved, the trial Court is well positioned to convict on the evidence available. As was stated by this Court in James Simon v. The State (2017) LPELR – 41988 (SC),

Now on whether or not the offence of armed robbery was established against the appellant, I must say that evidence abound as produced by the prosecution, to prove the offence of armed robbery against the accused person, (now appellant) as rightly found by the trial Court. The elements required to be proved by the prosecution in order to obtain a conviction of the offence of armed robbery under Section 1 (2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act are listed hereunder:-
(a) That there was a robbery;
(b) That at the time of the robbery the accused or any of the accused person was armed with arms or offensive weapon
(c) That the accused facing the trial was the robber or one of the armed robbers.
See Diwa v The State (1980) 8-11 SC 236; Bozin v The State (1985) 2 NWLR (pt.8) 465; Olayinka v The State (2007) 9 NWLR (pt.1040) 561.

The other aspect considered by the lower Court is the inability of the prosecution to tender in evidence all or any of the items allegedly stolen in evidence. The apex Court considered this question in the case of Simon vs. The State (2017) ALL FWLR (pt. 887) 1929 @ 1949 1950 per Rhodes Vivour JSC, where he said:
Tendering recovered items from an armed robbery is desirably but not mandatory, especially when there is damaging eyewitness evidence that the appellant was one of the armed robbers."
In the instant case, evidence showed that the items allegedly stolen were taken away in the car that was stolen, and not recovered. The learned counsel for the respondent is right having asserted that no law imposes a duty on the prosecution to tender items stolen in a robbery, and going by the evidence of the PW2 and PW3, the items were taken away, and disposed off as narrated in Exhibit P4. The holding of the lower Court on the aspect cannot therefore be faulted.

Armed robbery was defined to mean simply stealing plus violence used or threatened. See Aruna vs. The State (1990) NWLR (pt. 155) 125.

It has been established that the following ingredients must be established to ground the offence of armed robbery, against an accused person.
1. That there was a robbery or series of robberies.
2. That the robberies or series of robberies were armed robberies.
3. That the accused person (s) were or was one of the people or peoples that committed the armed robbery.
See Afolalu vs. The State (2010) ALL FWLR (pt. 538) 812; Bozin vs. The State (1985) 2 NWLR (pt. 8) 465; Aruna vs. The State (1990) 6 NWLR (pt. 155) 125; Adeosun vs. The State (2007) 46 WRN 1; Eyo vs. The State (supra) @ 511,and The State vs. Isiaka @ 1062, amongst many others.

It is trite that for the Prosecution to succeed in proof of the offence of robbery there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt of the following essential ingredients:
(1) That there must be robbery or series of robberies.
(2) That the robbery or each robbery was an armed robbery.
(3) That the Accused was one of those who took part in the robbery.

The essential ingredients for the offence of armed robbery have been stated in a host of authorities by this Court. I wish to restate them here below as follows:
1. That there was a robbery.
2. That the robbery was an armed robbery.
3. That the Accused was one of those who robbed.
The decisions in Bello v The State (2007) 10 NWLR (Part 1043) 564 at 566; Nwachukwu v The State (1985) 1 NWLR (Part 11) 218; are in point.

Robbery generally, is the illegal taking of property from the person of another or in the person's presence by violence or intimidation. While armed robbery is robbery committed by a person carrying a dangerous weapon, regardless of whether the weapon is revealed or used. See; Akeem Agboola Vs. The State (2013) 11 NWLR (pt.1366) 619; (2013) 8 SCM 157; (2013) All FWLR (Pt.704) 139; Idowu Okanlawon Vs. The State (2015) 9 SCM 159.
In the same vein, by Section 11 of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act (supra), robbery is defined as follows:
"Stealing anything and at immediately before or after the time of stealing it, using, or threatening to use actual violence to any person or property in order to obtain or retain the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen or retained."

On the second leg of the charge, which is armed robbery, for the prosecution to succeed and obtain conviction of an accused at the trial, it needs to prove the following.
(a) That infact there was a robbery.
(b) That the robbery was an armed robbery and;
(c) That the accused person was the armed robber or one of the armed robbers.
See; Bozin Vs. State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.8) 465 at 467; Alabi Vs. State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.307) 551; Olayinka Vs State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt.1040) 561; (2007) 8 SCM, 193; Osetola & Anor Vs The State (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt.1329) 251 at 275 (2012) 12 SCM (Pt. 2) 347; (2012) 6 SC (Pt. 101) 148.

The prosecution has a bounden duty in all criminal trials to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and so in a charge of armed robbery such as the present case.
Therefore in this instance, the prosecution had to establish on this standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt the following requisite ingredients of the offence of armed robbery, thus:
a. That there was robbery or series of robberies.
b. That the robbery was an armed robbery carried out with firearms or offensive weapons.
c. That the person charged with the offence was one of the robbers or implicated therein.
I rely on the following cases Bozin v The State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.8) 479; Eke v The State (2011) 202 LRCN 143
at 158; Afolalu v. State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1220) 584.
The method of carrying out the proof can be any or a combination of the methods, viz:
i. Confessional statement of the accused.
ii. Circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime
iii. Evidence of an eye-witness.
See Igabele v The State (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt.311) 1797 at 1823.

For the prosecution to prove the offence of armed robbery, it must prove the following ingredients:-
1. That there was robbery.
2. That the robbery was an armed robbery.
3. That the accused was one of those who robbed or took part in the robbery. See Bello vs. State (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1043) 564; Nwachukwu v. State (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.11) 218; State vs. Salawu (supra).

Furthermore anyone in the company of armed robbers, though unarmed is treated as armed under Section 1(2)(a) supra, and is convicted and sentenced as if he was also armed when the robbery was carried out.

To succeed in the offence of armed robbery the prosecution must establish that:
(a.) there was a robbery;
(b.) it was carried out with the use of offensive weapons; and
(c.) the accused person participated in the robbery. See Ogudo v. State (2011) 12 SC (Pt.i) p.71
All of the above must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before a conviction can be sustained.

To establish armed robbery, as Appellant's counsel correctly submitted, the prosecution must establish the following facts beyond reasonable doubt. That is
a. There was a robbery or series of robbery incidents;
b. The robbers were armed;
c. The accused was one of the robbers who committed the robbery.
See:BOZIN v. THE STATE (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.8) 465 at 469; THE STATE v. ADEMOLA (1989) CLRN 370. Accordingly, it is imperative that the prosecution must prove the participation of the accused in the alleged armed robbery, and the identity of the accused is therefore in issue.

For the prosecution to succeed in proving the offence of armed robbery, it must through credible evidence prove the following ingredients:-
(1). That there was robbery or series of robberies
(2). The robbers were armed
(3) The accused person was the one or one of those who committed the robbery.

The law is well settled that for the prosecution to obtain conviction on a charge of armed robbery, it must prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following essential ingredients of the offence as follows:-
(a) That there was committed a robbery or series of robberies.
(b) That the robbery was committed while any or all the robbers was/were in possession of arms or offensive weapon
(c) That the accused person was one of those who took port in the armed robbery.
All these ingredients of the offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution through credible evidence from eye witnesses or through voluntary confessional statement of the accused person or even through circumstantial evidence pointing squarely and unequivocally that it was the accused charged and no other person was responsible in the commission of the offence charged. See Olayinka Afolalu V The State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 584; Aminu Tanko v The State (2009) 1-2 SC 198; Aruna V The State (1990) 9-10 SC 87.

In a nut-shell the offence of armed robbery simply means stealing plus or accompanied with violence or threat of injury or death. See Aruna v The State (1990)6 NWLR (pt 155) 725; Tanko v The State (2009) 2 SCNJ 19; Ani v The State (2009) 6 SCNJ 105; Bozin v State (1985) 2 NWLR (pt 8) 465; Okosi V A.G Bendel State(1989)1 NWLR (pt 100) 442; Nwachukwu v State (1985)1 NWLR (pt 11) 218.

Click the link below to read full Judgment:

Terlumen Giki v. State LGC(19/1/2018)C

For the prosecution to obtain conviction on the offence of armed robbery, it has a duty to establish the following elements beyond reasonable doubt, to wit
(i) that the accused person in the process had committed theft
(ii) that the accused person and/or person(s) he was in company of had caused hurt, wrongful restraint or caused some fear or appreciation of death or hurt or injury on their victim or victims.
(iii) that the acts complained of were done in the process of committing the theft or in order to commit the theft and/or carry away the property obtained by the theft
(iv) that the accused person did the acts complained of voluntarily and(v) that the accused person or any one in his company was/were armed with dangerous weapons at the time of committing the offence in question during the robbery.
See Abdullahi v The State (2008) 5 SCNJ 2101277.

Click the link below to read full Judgment:
Terlumen Giki v. State LGC(19/1/2018)C

To succeed the prosecution must prove the following elements of the offence of armed robbery under Section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms Act beyond reasonable doubt.
(a) There was a robbery or series of robberies;
(b) The robbery or series of robberies were carried out with offensive weapons;
(c) The accused person participated in the robbery. See Ogudo v State (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) p.1 Bello v State (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) p. 564, Alabi v State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 307) p. 511, Suberu v State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1197) p. 586.

There is therefore no doubt at all that the mode of instituting criminal proceedings before the High Court for the offence of armed robbery is by summary trial procedure, i.e by Prefering a charge.

On the question whether the essential ingredients of the offence of armed robbery had been established beyond reasonable doubt. It is to be stated that the elements of the said offence are:
(a) That there was a robbery or a set of robberies;
(b) That the robbers were armed;
(c) That the accused participated in the robbery.
See Bozin v State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 8) 465; Ikemson v State (1989) 3 NWLR (Pr. 110) 455.

It is to be said that proving the offence beyond reasonable doubt is not synonymous with the number of witnesses called by the prosecution. This Court had restated what is required in meeting the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in the case of Akalezi v State (1993) per Ogwuegbu JSC at page 13 as follows:
"Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not attained by the number of witnesses fielded by the prosecution. It depends on the quality of evidence tendered by the prosecution. In the case of Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 ALL ER 372, it was held that Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all shadow of doubt and if the evidence is strong against a man, as to leave only a remote probability in his favour; of course it is possible, but not in the least probable, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt."
The learned Supreme Court jurist further stating that:
"The Court can act on the evidence of a single witness if that witness can be believed given all the surrounding circumstances. One single credible witness can establish a case beyond reasonable doubt."
What is expected of the prosecution is to exercise of discretion on who to call to testify and is not bound to utilize those named in the proof of evidence. This is so since the Court can convict on the evidence of only one witness if that witness is not an accomplice in the commission of the offence and his evidence sufficiently probative of the offence charged. see Ofoke Nwambe v State (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt.384) 385 at 408; Onafowokan v State(1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.61) 538; Ogbodu v State (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt.54) 20; Adaje v State(1979) 6-9 SC18.

It is stating the obvious that an arraignment of an accused without his taking his plea on the Court in keeping with Section 187(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code renders the trial a nullity.

It is also trite that whenever the case against an accused person depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of the identification of the accused, and the defence alleges that the identification was mistaken, the Court must closely examine the evidence and in acting on it must view it with caution, so that any real weakness discovered about it must lead to giving the accused the benefit of the doubt. See: Ukpabi Vs The State (supra); R V. Turnbull (1975) 3 All ER 549: Abudu Vs The State (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.1) 55 @ 51 – 62; Mbenu vs The State (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.84) 615 @ 628; Ikpo Vs The State (2015) 2 – 3 SC (Pt.III) 88 @ 111 lines 6 – 21 per Kekere-Ekun, JSC.

However, if the evidence of a lone witness is believed, his identification of an accused person can sustain a conviction, even on a charge of murder.
See: Ochiba Vs The State (2011) 12 SC (Pt.IV) 79.

In context, armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery are not such offences for which mens rea or evil intention has to be established as the specific ingredients of armed robbery have been prescribed in Sections 401 and 402 of the Criminal Code Act.
Click the link below to read the full judgment:
Adekoya v. State. LGC(13/1/2017) C

In context, armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery are not such offences for which mens rea or evil intention has to be established as the specific ingredients of armed robbery have been prescribed in Sections 401 and 402 of the Criminal Code Act.
Click the link below to read the full judgment:
Adekoya v. State. LGC(13/1/2017) A

Getting specifically into the offence of armed robbery on which the appellant was charged, the essential elements thereof are
a. That there was a robbery or series of robberies
b. That the robbery was with arms.
c. That the accused person was the armed robber or one of the armed robbers.
Click the link below to read the full judgment:
Adekoya v. State.LGC(13/1/2017) C

For the prosecution to succeed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt it must prove:-
1 . That there was robbery or series of robberies.
2. The robbery or each robbery was committed by person or persons who were armed.
3. That the accused person was one of those who took Part in the armed robbery.

To succeed, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:
(a) There was a robbery or series of robberies;
(b) The robbery or each robbery was an armed robbery and
(c) The accused was one of those who took part in the armed robbery. See Bozin v. State (1985) 5 SC p.106
Okosi v. Attorney General Bendel State (1989) 2 SC (pt.1) p.126.
Martins v. State (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt 481) p.355
Osuagwu v. State (2013) 1-2 SC (pt. 1) p.37
Emeka v. State (2014) 6-7 SC (pt.1) p.64

Having stated the above one needs reminding that for the prosecution to succeed in proof of the offence of armed robbery as in this instance there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt of the following:
1. That there was a robbery or series of robberies; and
2. That the robbery or each robbery was an armed robberies; and
3. That the accused was one of those who took part in the armed robbery. See Attah v. State (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1201) 190; Suberu v. State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1197) 586.

As I stated earlier, the appellant was charged with conspiracy to commit an offence of armed robbery and armed with some others at large. It is trite law that for the prosecution to establish the offence of armed robbery, it must ensure that the followings are proved to the satisfaction of the Court.
(a) That there was in fact a robbery;
(b) That the robbery was an armed robbery, that is that the robbers or at least one of them are armed;
(c) That the accused person was the armed robber or one of armed robbers
See Bozin Vs. State (1985)2 NWLR (pt. 8)465 at 467; Alabi Vs. State (1993) 7 NWLR (PT. 307) 551; Olayinka Vs. State(2007)4 SC (pt.1) 710;(2007) 9 NWLR (PT. 1040) 561; (2007) 8 SCM 193.

The law is settled that offence of armed robbery can be established by proof of the under listed elements, namely.
(a) That there was a robbery or series of robberies.
(b) Each or any of the robbers was armed at the time of the robbery operation.
(c) That the accused was one of the robbers or had taken part in robbery operation.
See Bozin vs. the State (1985)2 NWLR (pt.8)465 at 467, Sorbor vs. The State (2001) FWLR (pt.78)10 77 at 1100.

In order to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution must prove:
1. That there was a robbery or series of robberies.
2. That each robbery was an armed robbery; and
3. That the appellant was one of those who took part in the armed robbery or robberies.
See: Bozin Vs The State (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.8) 465: Suberu Vs The State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1197) 586: Olayinka vs The State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt 1040) 561.

On this offence of armed robbery, the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt has been stated to be that;
(a) There was theft by the accused person;
(b) Hurt was caused or unlawful restraint on the victims by the accused person;
(c) The said acts complained of were done in the process of committing the theft and/carrying away the property obtained by theft;
(d) That the accused person(s) did the act complained of voluntarily, and
(e) That the accused person(s) was/were armed with dangerous weapons while committing the offence in question.
I place reliance on the dictum of Onnoghen JSC in Abdullahi v. The State (2008) Vol.164 LRCN 97 at 113 – 114.

To prove armed robbery the Prosecution must adduce evidence that: a) That there was robbery;
b) That the robbery was committed while the accused person was armed with offensive weapons; c) That the accused person participated in the robbery. HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C

Once the prosecution proves the ingredients of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt, failure to tender the offensive weapon cannot result in the acquittal of the accused person. This is because of the possibility of the accused person doing away with the offensive weapon after the commission of the offence in order to exculpate himself from criminal responsibility. Nothing stops an accused person from throwing away or hiding the offensive weapon completely outside the investigative eyes of the Police.
If there is compelling evidence that the accused person committed the armed robbery, failure to tender the offensive weapon, in the circumstances, cannot therefore be basis of acquittal. Per TOBI, JSC, in FATAI OLAYINKA V. THE STATE (2007) LPELR-2580(SC) (PP. 21-22 PARAS. G). UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI J.S.C.

It is trite law that the prosecution is duty bound to prove the following ingredients beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction for the offence of armed robbery: 1. That there was a robbery incident or series of robberies. 2. That the robbery or each of the robberies was an armed robbery. 3. That the accused was the armed robber or one of the armed robbers. See DAWAI v. STATE (2017) LPELR-43835(SC); OGOGOVIE v. STATE (2016) LPELR-40501(SC); STATE v. AJAYI (2016) LPELR-40663(SC). PER ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C

Both the appellant and the respondent are adidem on the three essential elements to be established in a charge of armed robbery. These are: 1. That there was a robbery or series of robberies 2. The robbery was an armed robbery and 3. The accused participated in the robbery. See Musa v. State (supra) FRN v. Dairo (supra) and Saminu v. State (supra). The prosecution must lead cogent and positive evidence that leaves no room whatsoever for any other conclusion other than that it was the appellant who committed the offence.
Where there is any slightest doubt on the case of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused person. In other words, the doubt must be genuine and reasonable arising from evidence before the Court. See The State v. Aibangbee (1988) 7 SC (Pt. 1) 96 at 132-133 and Mbenu v. The State (1988) 7 SC (Pt. 111) 71 at 87 Para 10-20. PER TALBA, J.CA.

In the offence of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, in order to secure a conviction the prosecution must prove the following facts: a. That there was an agreement between the accused and others to commit armed robbery; b. That in furtherance of that agreement the accused took part in the commission of the armed robbery or series of robbery; c. That the robbery or each of the robberies was an armed robbery. – PER MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

To ground a conviction for the offence of armed robbery, the prosecution has the duty of proving beyond reasonable doubt that; a. That there was a robbery; b. That the robbers were armed with offensive weapons as at the time of the robbery; and c. That the accused person participated in the robbery. The above three elements must be established beyond reasonable doubt before the Court can convict for each of the respective offences. It is to be noted that if any one of these elements is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction will be quashed on appeal.
See the case of THOMAS V STATE (2017) LPELR-41735 (SC). See also Yusuf v State (2018) All FWLR (pt. 405) 1731 . – PER MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

It is a trite fundamental doctrine, that for the prosecution to succeed in sustaining the charge of armed robbery against an accused person, under Section 1(2)  (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special provisions) Act Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 (supra), it has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt the following ingredients: (i) That there was an armed robbery or a series of armed robbery; (ii) That the robbery was an armed robbery (iii) That the accused person had participated in the commission of the armed robbery; See, AGBOOLA VS.
THE STATE (2013) NWLR (pt. 1366); (2013) LPELR-SC 434 2011 @ 26 paragraphs D-G; BOZIN VS. THE STATE (1985) 2 NWLR (pt. 8) 465 @ 467; ALABI VS. THE STATE (1993) 7 NWLR (pt. 307) 551, et al. PER IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.

It follows that to sustain a charge of Armed Robbery against the accused person, the following ingredients must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (a) That there was an armed robbery or a series of robberies (b) That each of the robberies was an armed robbery (c) That the accused was one of those who took part in the robbery or robberies. I rely on Miller v Minister of Pensions (947) 2 All ER 372; Agboola V State (2013) 11 NWLR (pt. 1366) 619 at 173 . – PER MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

What we are faced with in this appeal in addition to conviction for armed robbery there is also a conviction for murder, at the base of it all is the notorious fact that in a trial for murder, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in so doing the essential ingredients must be made out.
These essential elements are: (1) That the death of a human being has actually taken place. (2) That the death was caused by the accused. (3) That the act was done with the intention to cause death or that the accused knew or had reason to know that death would be the probable and not only the likely consequence of his act. In proof of those elements, the prosecution could rely on direct eye witness account of the incident, voluntary confessional statement or circumstantial evidence. See Kaza V. State (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1085) 125 163, Oludamilola V.
State (2010) 181 LRCN 1 at 16, Mustafa Mohammed & Anor V. State (2007) CRCN 110 at 125 and Adio V. State (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 24) 581. See also Ugochukwu Okereke V. State (2016) LPELR 40012 (SC). PER BASIR, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION HAS TO CALL A HOST OF WITNESSES IN ORDER TO PROVE ITS CASE Secondly, the law does not impose on the prosecution to call a host of witnesses in order to prove its case. All it needs to do is to call enough material witnesses to prove its case and in so doing, it has a discretion in the matter. It does not lie in the mouth of the defence to urge the prosecution to call a particular witness. Olayinka V. State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1040) page 561 and Odili V. The State (1977) LPELR-2221 (SC).
Moreover, only evidence duly adduced and received in the course of hearing a matter in Court that will make or mar the prosecution’s case, not statement of any other person merely attached to the proof of evidence. PER BASIR, J.C.A.

To succeed in a charge of Armed Robbery, it has been firmly established by a plethora of authorities that in order to secure conviction every single element or ingredients of the offence must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Armed Robbery simply means robbery plus violence threatened or used. Before there can be robbery something must be stolen and it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove that the accused person stole something capable of being stolen and at the time of stealing, the accused threatened to use violence or used violence immediately before or after the time of stealing. The violence would be either on a person or on property in order to obtain or retain the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen or retained.
To establish armed robbery as it was made out by the parties, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a robbery or series of robberies and that the robbers were armed and the accused was the armed robber or one of the armed robbers. See F.R.N VS. YARO (2012) SCN 223 AT 236 – 237, OKANLAWON VS. STATE (2015) 3 SCN 359 and ISIAKA VS. STATE (2013) NCQR 1158. Going by the testimony PW1, stated thus:- “…On the 26/12/2015 at about 8:30pm I and my junior brother by name Alhaji Sani were coming from the shop where we sell handsets, recharge cards/provisions.
We met four persons two on each side and they stopped us. Three of the persons were armed with guns while the 4th person was armed with a knife. The accused person herein was one of the persons referred to here. They collected recharge cards totaling One Million Naira, raw cash totaling about seventy Thousand Naira realized from the sales of handsets/recharged cards and ‘provisions.
Also taken away from me is a laptop valued at N70,000.00 the accused person in spite of taking away the afforested items still insisted we should take them to my elder brother’s house the accused person fired a shot in the house, and all of us in the house lied down. My elder brother came out after hearing the shot and gunshot and accosted the accused person and we all stood up and arrested the three persons were taken to the police station at Tinkno, the two accused were lynched by the villagers at Police Station but the accused survived.
From there, he was taken to Lamurde Divisional Police Headquarters we couldn’t recover our stole items but only two guns and one knife was found on the accused.” See page 92 of the printed record of appeal. PER UWA, J.C.A.

The law is clear and well established on the ingredients that must be proved to be able to sustain a conviction of armed robbery, they are as follows: a) That there was a robbery b) That the robbery was carried out with the use of offensive weapons c) That the accused person participated in the robbery. It is imperative to say that all the above requirements must be consecutively proved beyond reasonable doubt before a conviction can be sustained based on the indictments in the Information filed. See the decision in the case of EHIMEN ESE v. STATE (2017). PER KOLAWOLE, J.CA.

However, it is trite that to secure a conviction for armed robbery, the prosecution must prove the following: (a) that there was an armed robbery (b) that the accused was armed, and (c) that the accused, while with the arm or arms, participated in the robbery.
Once the prosecution proves the above ingredients beyond reasonable doubt, failure to tender the offensive weapon cannot result in the acquittal of the accused person because of the possibility of the accused person doing away with the offensive weapon after the commission of the offence in order to exculpate himself from criminal liability. See Olayinka v. State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1040) 561 SC, Okosi v. A-G, Bendel State (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 100) 642 SC and Martins v. State (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 481) 355 CA . PER OWOADE, J.C.A.

In the case of JATO VS. THE STATE (2019) 8 NWLR (PT. 1674) PAGE 326 PARAS E – F, it was held by the Supreme Court per Kekere-Ekun, JSC that in a charge of armed robbery, the prosecution must prove the following essential ingredients: (a) That there was a robbery or series of robberies. (b) That each robbery was an armed robbery; and (c) That the accused person was the robber or one of those who participated in the armed robbery. In the case of MARTIN EGBUFOR VS.
THE STATE (2019) 5 NWLR (PT. 1665) 260 AT 277 PARA D, it was held by the Supreme Court that where the prosecution leads credible, compelling and unequivocal evidence fixing the accused person at the scene of crime as a participant, it would have discharged the onus of proving the Appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. PER IDRIS, J.C.A.

The law is trite that for the prosecution to secure a conviction for a particular offence, all the elements of the offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by cogent, credible and legally admissible evidence.
The elements of the offence of armed robbery which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt are: (a) That there was a robbery or series of robbery; (b) That each robbery was an armed robbery; and (c) That the person accused of the robbery was one of those who participated in the robbery or series of robberies. The prosecution can discharge that burden by any or a combination of the following means: (a) The confessional statement of the accused person(s); or (b) Circumstantial evidence; or (c) Evidence of eyewitness of the crime. See OPEYEMI V. STATE (2019) LPELR- 48764(SC) AT 26(C). SEUN V.
STATE (2019) LPELR-47548(SC) AT 18(C). MINDI V. STATE (2020) LPELR-52897(SC) AT 31-32(D-E). DONDOS V. STATE (2021) LPELR-53380(SC) AT 8-9 (B-B). PER BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.

Armed robbery is defined by the apex Court thusly: “…In effect, armed robbery simply means stealing plus violence, used or threatened.” See EKE V. STATE (2011) LPELR-1133(SC), ARUNA V. THE STATE (1994) 6 NWLR (PT. 155) 125 and AMINU TANKO V. THE STATE (2009) 1- 2 SC (PT. 1) 198 AT 223. Also in STATE V. ISIAKA (2013) LPELR-20521 (SC) wherein the apex Court also held thusly: “What is Armed Robbery?” “Armed Robbery” for our purpose here will only be looked at from the stand point of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act Cap. R 11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.
The simplest breakdown of Armed Robbery is to rob with arms. What then is “Robbery” and what constitutes “arms” The word “Robbery” under the Act means, “stealing anything and at or immediately before or after the time of stealing it using or threatening to use actual violence to any person or property in order to obtain or retain the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen or retained.” The word “steal” is encapsulated in the definition of the word “Robbery” under the Act.
The Act goes on to define the word “steal” as – “To take or convert to one’s use or to the use of any other person, anything other than immovable property with any of the following intents: a) an intent permanently to deprive the owner of the thing of it. b) an intent permanently to deprive any person who has any special property in the thing of such property, the term “special property” here including any charge or lien upon the thing in question and right arising from or dependent upon holding possession of the thing in question, whether by the person entitled to such right or by some other person for his benefit. c) an intent to use the thing as a pledge or security. d) an intent to part with the thing on a condition as to its return which the person taking or converting it may be unable to perform. e) an intent to deal with the thing in such a manner that it cannot be returned in the condition in which it was at the time of the taking or conversion. f) in the case of money, an intent to use it at the will of the person who takes or converts it, although he may intend afterwards to repay the amount to the owner.” As regards the word “Arms” there is a clear subdivision of that term under the Act into “firearms” and “other offensive weapons.” “Firearms” include the following – cannon, gun, rifle, carbine, machine gun, cap gun, flint lock gun, revolver, pistol, explosive or ammunition or other firearms whether whole or detached pieces.” “Other offensive weapons” under the Act are made to refer to “any article (apart from a firearm) made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person or intended by the person having it for such use by him and it includes an air gun, air pistol, bow and arrow, spear, cutlass, matchet, dagger, cudgel, or any piece of wood, metal glass or stone capable of being used as an offensive weapon.” Per ALAGOA, J.S.C.
The offence of armed robbery requires the Respondent to prove the following ingredients: a. That there was a robbery;
b. That the robbers were armed with offensive weapons as at the time of the robbery; and
c. That the accused person participated in the robbery. PER NIMPAR, J.C.A.

The law is trite that in order to secure a conviction for the offence of armed robbery, the prosecution is only duty bound to prove; (a) That there was an armed robbery. (b) That the accused was armed in company with any person so armed; and (c) that the accused while with arm or arms or in company with person so armed, participated in the robbery.
Once the prosecution proves the aforementioned elements of the offence of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt, its failure to tender the arms or offensive weapon cannot lead to his acquittal because of the possibility of the accused person doing away with the arms or weapon after the commission of the crime in order to exculpate himself from detection or arrest. See: Ameh v. State (2018) LPELR-44463 SC; Olayinka v. State (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1040) 561; Okosi v. A.-G., Bendel State (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 100) 642. ABDU ABOKI, J.S.C.

I must emphasize here that there is no principle of law that insists that the prosecution must tender weapons used in the alleged robbery in order to prove the guilt of an accused person. The tendering of the weapons used depends on the circumstance of the case, for instance, where the prosecution stated that any weapon used in the robbery was recovered. See Olayinka’s case (supra). The hues and cries of learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent did not tender any weapon, cannot avail him. See also: Abiodun v.
The State (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 700) 1257 at 1269 Para E, (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt.1358) 138. ABDU ABOKI, J.S.C.

“In order to secure conviction for the offence of armed robbery, prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the following elements of the offence: 1. That there was a robbery or series of robberies. 2. That the robbery or each robbery was an armed robbery. 3. That the accused was the robber or one of those who took part in the armed robbery.
Armed robbery means simply stealing plus violence, used or threatened. The offence of armed robbery is committed when the offender is armed with any firearms or any offensive weapon or is in company with any person so armed, or at or immediately before or immediately after the time of the robbery the said offender wounds or uses any personal violence to any person” – PER ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.

“There is no principle of law requiring that the weapon used in armed robbery must be tendered to prove the offence and secure a conviction. See Adisa v The State (2018) LPELR-46340(SC); Awosika v The State (2018) LPELR-44351(SC); Sadiku v The State (2011) LPELR-4912(CA); Esene v The State (2013) LPELR-20699(CA). If there is compelling evidence that the accused person committed the armed robbery, failure to tender the offensive weapon, cannot be basis of acquittal; Olayinka v The State (2007) LPELR-2580(SC); John v. The State (2019) LPELR-46936(SC).
The evidence must be such that there is cogent, reliable and authentic oral and documentary evidence which the Court believes and admits” – PER ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.

For the offence of armed robbery to be sustained, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt the essential elements of the offence which must be proved directly, circumstantially or by the accused’s confessional statement. They are: a. That there was robbery or series of robberies; b. The robbery was armed robbery; c. The accused was the robber or one of robbers.
See Opeyemi Vs State (2019) 17 NWLR (Pt.1702) 403 at 409; Sanmi Vs State (2019) 13 NWLR (Pt.1690) 551 at 556; John Vs State (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt.1676) 160 at 162; Danjuma Vs State (2019) 10 NWLR (Pt.1679) 184 at 188 and State Vs Musa (2020) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1709) 499 at 503.
In the instant case, the trial Court was right in finding that the ingredients of armed robbery were established beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant – PER TANI YUSUF HASSAN, J.C.A.

Now the essential ingredients for the offence of armed robbery have been stated by this Court in a host of authorities. I wish to restate them here as follows:- (1). That these was a robbery (2). That the robbery was an armed robbery (3). That the accused person was one of those who robbed. All of the above must be provided beyond reasonable doubt before a conviction can be sustained and proof beyond reasonable doubt entails the prosecution producing enough evidence to justify the charge.
See OLAYINKA AFOLALU VS THE STATE (Supra); FATAI OLAYINKA VS THE STATE (2007) 4 SCNJ 53; CHUKWUKA OGUDO VS THE STATE (2011) 12 SC (PT.1) 71. SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.S.C

In a case of armed robbery such as the one under discourse, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove the essential elements of the offence which are as follows: – 1. That there was a robbery or series of robberies; 2. That each robbery was an armed robbery i.e., stealing plus violence with a weapon or arms 3. That the accused/appellant was one of those who took part in the armed robbery I refer to Eke v State (2011) 1-2 SC (part II) 219; Ugboji v State (2018) 10 NWLR (pt. 1627) 346; Orisa v State (2018) 11 NWLR (pt. 1631) 453 (SC); The State v Odunayo Ajayi (2016) 14 NWLR (pt. 1532) 216.
In proving or establishing the necessary ingredients above stated in a charge or armed robbery just as in any other criminal matter, the prosecution can achieve the same by the deployment of any of the following methods, viz:
a. Direct and credible evidence; or ​b. Circumstantial  evidence, or c. The confessional statement of the accused person. See Babatunde v State (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1391) P.341. PER PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

On the Appellant’s conviction for Armed Robbery, it is settled that for an offence of Armed Robbery to be established against him, the Respondent had the duty to prove the following ingredients: i) That there was robbery; ii) That the robbery was an armed robbery and iii) That the accused person was the armed robber or was among the armed robbers. See ADELEKE VS. STATE 2013 6 NWLR (PT. 1381)556 AT P. 582 – 583 PARAS G – A, OTITI VS. THE STATE (1991) 8 NWLR (PT. 207) P.103 AT P.118 PARAS C – D AND STATE VS. AJAYI (2016) 14 NWLR (PT. 1532) P.196 AT 227 -228 PARAS G – A.
The position of the law is that all the above ingredients must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the Respondent before it can secure conviction. PER OJO, J.C.A.

Section 1 (2) a and b of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act provides: “Any person who commits the offence of robbery shall upon trial and conviction under this Act be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 21 years; Section 1 (2) if- (a) Any offender mentioned in subsection (1) of this section is armed with any firearms or any offensive weapon or is in company with any person so armed; or (b) At or immediately before or after the time of the robbery, the said offender wounds or uses any personal violence to any person, the offender shall be liable upon conviction under this Act to be sentenced to death.”
To succeed in proving the commission of the offence of conspiracy under Section 6(a) of the Robbery and Firearms Act, the Prosecution has a burden to establish the following ingredients: (i) The existence of an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means; (ii) That the illegal act was done in furtherance of the agreement and that each of the accused persons participated in the illegality. See Abdullahi v The State (2008) 17 NWLR (pt. 115) 203 at 221. PER SAULAWA, J.S.C.

To secure a conviction under Sec. 1(2) (b) of the Robbery & Firearms Act, the following essential ingredients must be proved by the prosecution: i) That there was indeed a robbery or series of robbery. ii) That the robbers were armed with dangerous weapons and iii) That the accused/Defendant was the robber or one of the robbers. See: Osetola vs State (2012) 17 NWLR (pt. 1329) 251, Osuagwu vs State (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1347) 360, Abiodun vs State (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt.1358) 138, Ajayi vs State (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt.1360) 589. PER OGUNWUNMIJU, J.S.C.

To secure a conviction under Sec. 1(2) (b) of the Robbery & Firearms Act, the following essential ingredients must be proved by the prosecution: i) That there was indeed a robbery or series of robbery. ii) That the robbers were armed with dangerous weapons and iii) That the accused Defendant was the robber or one of the robbers. See: Osetola vs State (2012) 17 NWLR (pt. 1329) 251, Osuagwu vs State; (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1347) 360, Abiodun vs State (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt.1358) 138, Ajayi vs State (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt.1360) 589; PER OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.