i / 11 11 C 5t d ate · •· \ threw away the kitchen knife at the bush after committing the cnme. \ r,c;uffice it to "ay, that from the, evaluation of the eviden ce before this court that the prosecution proved that it is the act of t he defendant that caused the death of the deceased . It must be exp ressly stated, as found by this honorable court that the evidence of th e miedical doctor who testified \ as PW3, with the evidence of PWl, PVV2, PW4 and the Defendant wl~o testified as DWl and Exhibit "C" all poi nt to the fact that the deceased died out of stabbing/penetrating injury of the Defendant wy was last seen with the deceased . . Now, let us fu ~ther examine whether the act or acts we re done with the intention of causing death or the accused knew that death would be the probable consequence of the acts . In this regard , this court will subscribe to the erudite decision of Garba J. C. A in EMMANUEL DAVID El<ANENI V. THE STATE [2009 ] LPER-4105 CA thus :" ln most cases therefore, certain factor and circ umstances are usually considered in the determination of whet her there was intention \to cause death . Some of them are :i i [a] Nature of weapon or object used . [b] Part of the body on which weapon or object was used. [c] Amount of force used in the offence . [d] Condition of both deceased and accused person at the time of the offence . .... .where a person cause/inflicts wound of such nature and severity SUIT NO. 0/49c/2016: THE STATE VS CHIBUIKE DURU Judgment delivered on 19/04/2018 Page I 23