given to the Defendant who already admitted obtaining the total of over N2 Million from PW1. Citing LATEEF ADENIJI v STATE (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt. 730) 375; ADEREMI OMOTAYO v THE STATE (2012) LPELR-9358(CA); ABDULRAUF v THE STATE (2007) 35 WRN 52 at 82, lines 35 – 45; 86, lines 20 -25; and EME ORJI v STATE (2008) 10 NWLR (1094) 31 (SC); Counsel argued that a careful look at the withdrawals and deposits in Exhibits PW3C and PW3D, the two statements of accounts of PW1 from 4th July, 2016 to the date the Defendant admitted he started collecting over N2 Million under false pretence from PW1, only point to one single fact, that the withdrawals made by PW1 during that period was the money the Defendant obtained from PW1. He urged the Court to hold that the circumstantial evidence adduced in this case is overwhelming enough to convict the Defendant. On proof by evidence of eye witnesses, learned Counsel submitted that the evidence of PW1, the sole eye witness is enough to convict the Defendant. He referred to the case of ILODIGWE v THE STATE (2012) LPELR-9342(SC), to the effect that where a trial court finds the evidence of an eye witness unequivocal and true, it is bound to accept same and act on it irrespective that it is the evidence of a lone witness. Counsel referred to the vivid explanation of PW1 as to what transpired between him and the Defendant. He pointed out that the evidence of PW1 was unchallenged and uncontroverted and urged the Court to accept the evidence of PW1, who was the victim and an eye witness in this case, as duly established, citing in support the Supreme Court decision in BROADLINE 8