1111 because the burden is fix ed with out shift on th e prosecution, it is only when the pro~ecution has discharged the burden on him th at by provisions of section 135 (1) and (2) of th e Evid ence act th at the burden of proving beybnd reason able doubt is shifted on th e l defendant by 1 virtue of sect io1 135 (3) of th e Evidence Act I Now let us take ~he ingredients as elucidated and enum erated by karibi w hyte J.S.C in t rne cas e of OMINI V. STATE [supra] on e aft er th e other sta rt ing from the dea th of t he human being . There seems t o be no dispute as t o ~his f act that Favour Bas sey [the victim ] d ied . The st atement of the Defendant tendere d as Exhibits "C" wh ere the Defen d ant stated th us " ...... / killed the deceased ..... " and also Exhibits .. B" tendered by \P W 3 [a medical do ct or w ho person ally cond ucted the post morten, e xaminatio n] showe d tha t t he ca use of th e deat h of the deceased wa s p e ~et ratin g injury . The above un chall enged evidence left this court with . no doubt that the pro secution prov ed t he first ingredient . The second ingredien t is whether it is t he ac t of the Defendan t that caused the death of the deceased . Like in all murder cases; issues are usuaUy joined in t hat .respect and t his case presents the same chaUenge. In prove of t his ingredien t, t he prosecution called Nd idiamJka. Age nu who test ified as PW2 on 13/3/20 17 The said PW2 testified ,n t his respect stated t hus : I was ploying with Favor in front of our con1pound when the Defendant come and coiled Favor, immediately I heard Fa vor shouting, I rush to know why she was crying, I sow her in a pool 0 1 Wfl NO, O/fl9'f1;0H. lk( Slit.Tl V1 (Ht.8UIU ~ " '' Mheled °" 19/04/201.i ooau