of murder fgainst the Defendant can be sust aineu See OGBA VS. STATE (l99f) 2 NWLR (pt 222) 164 and fo r one t o be:: 6Uilty of murder, .he person .'r ust be guilty of both the act us Rue s an d l he Mens Rea as contained 11r Criminal Procedure Act. In Exhibit ''C · t he Defendant stated thus : , I /\ ••• •• why I Id/led the deceased Favor Bossey was because one native doctor from \Ayafu lfinansa Imo state told me to kill small girl so that I will be a grelat man .. " This is to Sci)/ that the intention of the Defendant t o kil l the deceased i was not onl~ found in the weapon used, he further inte nded to kill the deceased to \be a great man/rich as he was advised by th e native doctor in Exhibit 11 11 1 • To buttress this point the Defe nda nt answered thus under cross ~xamination :- Q. You drJ pped out of School because of School fe es' I I I A. Yes . \ Q. You are from a very poor family? 1 i A. Yes . In my mind, the Defendant having dropped out of school due to financial problem, and having come from a very poor fa mily confirms the Defendant 's statement in Exhibit "C" where he stat ed .. .. / killed the deceased Favor Bossey ..... so that I will be a great man ... " The prosecution equally discharged the two element s act us Rues and the Mens Rea as contained in Criminal Procedure Act . In the final analyses, it is my finding that the circumsta nt ial evidence is so strong that it is impossible to come to any other presu mpt ion t hat it was the defendant who killed the deceased . SUIT NO . 0/49c/2016 : THE STATE VS CHIBUIKE DU RU Judgment delivered on 19/04/2018 Pa ge I 25