17 testimony and the exhibits he tendered. Thus, benefit of doubt, if any, is resolved infavour of the accused person. Therefore, if the accused person gives an account of the event or incident which is consistent with his innocence and could be true or is not proved to be otherwise, such an accused person is entitled to be discharged and acquitted. This is because, in such an instance, a doubt has been raised with regards to his guilt as the same will be incapable of being proved beyond reasonable doubt. See UGWANYI VS FRN (2010) 14 NWLR (PART 1213)397 AT 409 PARAGRAPHS D – F. In the instant case, the prosecution has not satisfied the requirement of SECTION 135 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 2011 (AS AMENDED) with tendering the duplicate copy of the accused person’s statement of result to compare with the one he presented to them. Since the allegation is that he graduated with third class and he presented a second class lower and there is uncontradicted evidence of DW1 that before he was presented with the statement of result he signed a duplicate copy which must be with the University. There is before this Court no explanation as to the whereabout or non availability of the duplicate copy or that he did not sign any duplicate copy at all. In view of the above, the prosecution has not proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt therefore; I so hold that the accused person/Defendant be and is hereby discharged and acquitted accordingly. This is my judgment. Signed Judge 25/11/2016 Defendant Counsel: - We thank the Court for the erudite Judgment. Prosecution: - We thank you for the Judgment and appreciate the Court for its industry. Court: - You are all most welcome. Signed Judge 25/11/2016.