I i that death Wb · ould be the natura l outco me or con seq uf! nce of then ... . see BOGO V. STATE (1972] SC . 39. such act ' In this rega ~d, the weapon used according to Exhi bit "C" is a kitchen knife . Knife i\t self is a lethal weapon . Thi s is a corn mon knowledge . The result of staf.bin~ a _p ers~n with a knife at the ches t i~J\ no doubt to kill the person or to inflict grievous harm or injury on th e person . A person cannot stab another on the stomach and/or chest an d t urn around to say he did n9t intend to kill the person or do injury on t he p~rson. In Exhibit's "<C" the Defendant stated thus : "How I kill~d the deceased was that I saw her in front of their compound playing with other girls and I called her and she followed me to a correr and I then stabbed her with a kitchen knife on her stomach and\chest. After stabbing the girl, I ran away ... , I threw away the kitchen krfe to a bush after committing the crime. It is settled frpm the fact revealed by the Defendant in Ex hib it "C" in the peculiar circum stance of this case that the intention to kill the deceased or cause him Prievous harm is also found in the weapo n used. In the case of EDOHO VS STATE (2010) 14 NWLR pt . 1214 651 at 678 the Court sta~ed :- "where a person is attacked by a lethal weapon and he died at the spot or shortly afterwards. It is reasonable to infer that the injury inflicted on him caused the death" The Medical Chief Officer who conducted postmortem examination saw the decease and affirmed that what caused the dead was as a result of penetrating injury. He saw the stab as Confessed by the Defendant. The same with Pw-1, Pw-4 and Pw2 all confirmed the stabbing which the Defendant had already confessed. The Oral Confession he made to Pw1 corroborated the written one. It trite also that an intent to kill must be established before the charge SUIT NO . 0/49c/2016: THE STATE VS CHIBUIKE DURU Judgment delivered on 19/04/2018 Page I 24