death of the alleged deceased outside the incident of 31/3/2020, remains a mystery. - Oforlete V. State (2000) 12 NWLR pt 681 p 415. - Princewill V. State (1994) 6 NWLR pt 353 p 703. Defence counsel by paragraph 4.21 of their adopted written address further argued that looking at the contents of Exhibit ‘B’ the evidence of PW1 and PW2 in relation to the dying declaration, is highly contestable in relation to its veracity and authenticity. She argued that while PW1 said the deceased said it was Bilal who did that to him, PW2 said the deceased said it was Bilal and 3 others which is on inconsistency. - The State V. Musa (2020) 2 NWLR pt 1709 p499. She submitted that the defendant having been incapacitated by the deceased and there were three (3) others, it’s cloudy to alleged that it was the defendant who caused the death of the deceased she argued further that the exact words used by the deceased as required by the law for a dying declaration to be acceptable, has not been satisfied by the prosecution. - Hausa V. State (1994) 6 NWLR pt 350 p 281 Page 6 of 34