. ' As c~n be see from the aforesaiq submissions of the defence and the ! r prosecuting c unsel, both counsel are in concordance that the burden 1 of pJpof of th guilty ~f the Defe~dant is on the prosecution and that • the sr andard f proof 1s beyond r\easonable doubt. I also concur with . both \ counsel. That is the purport of section 135 [1] and [2] of the ' evide nce Act [ s amended] 2011 a~d the decision of the supreme court 1 in YONGO V C. 0. P [1992] NWLR [pt. 257] 36 [1992) 4 'SCNJ 113. ; The qefendan in this case is charged for murder contrary to section 274 [fl of the riminal code cap vol. ii Revised Laws of Anambra State of Nigeri1a 1991. t I ' I Sectio'n 271 of he aforesaid law def,ined the offence of murder thus : I "Exce~t as here nafter set forth., a p rson who unlawful/~ kills anoth~r under ny of the following circumstances, that 1s to say:a. 1[ the off, nder intends to cat se the death of the person killed 1 \ or that of b. other person; \ .- Jf the offe\ der intends to do !\he person killed or to some other person C. rme I so7egrievous harm; If death is ~aused by any ~ean~ of an act done in the prosecu_tion of an unlat ful purpose which ~ct is of such nature as to be ltke/y to endanger human life; I · , for If the off ender intends to do g,:ievous harm to some person_s . the purpose of facilitating the Jommission of an offence which ,s · \ · Ji the such that thf offender may be a1rested with warrant or or I d. I I I SUIT NO . 0/49c/2016: THE STATE VS CHIBUIKE DURU Judgment delivered on 19/04/2018 \ Page 111 I\