"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 (1985)7 SC (Reprint); Balogun vs AG of Ogun State (2001)FWLR (pt.780)1144."
Per SANUSI, J.S.C. in ADEBAYO OJO v. THE STATE (2018) LPELR-44699(SC)
"It is also the constitutional requirement that it is the prosecution that must prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. See Section 135 of Evidence Act 2011 as amended See also the case of Woolmington vs PPP (1935)AC 462; Uche v State (2015) 4-5 SC (pt.ll)140; Sani v The State (2015) 6/7 SC(pt.II )1 at 17. It must be emphasized here, that where slightest doubt exists as to the guilt of the accused, the Court must give the accused the benefit of doubt. It is well settled principle of law also, that an accused arraigned in Court is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty by his accuser (prosecution) beyond reasonable doubt through credible evidence. See Section 138 of Evidence Act and the case of Olayinka Afolabi vs the State (2010)16 NWLR (pt.1210) 584; Okoro v State (1988) NWLR (pt.94) or (1988) 12 SC (pt.II)88. It must however be stated here that proof of guilt of an accused person by the prosecution must be done in any of the under listed methods or ways: (i) Through a voluntary confessional statement of the accused person; and/or (ii) Through direct credible and reliable eye- witness or victims of the offence account depending on the circumstance of the offence or offences; and/or (iii) Through circumstantial evidence pointing or focusing on the guilt of the accused person that he was the one or one of the persons who committed the offence or offences charged and by no other person(s) but him. See Adio v The State (1986)2 NWLR (pt.24); Emeka vs The State (2001)6 SC 227; Egboghonome v The State (1993)7 NWLR (pt.306)383."
Per SANUSI, J.S.C. in ADEBAYO OJO v. THE STATE (2018) LPELR-44699(SC)
