in evidence because it was made before the date of the commission of the offences alleged against the Defendants and for which offences the Defendants were found guilty. Defence counsel also argued that the failure of the prosecution to call the person who recovered the cutlass (Exhibit ‘A’) to give evidence and medical report showing that the injury sustained by PW4, was as a result of the cutlass used, was fatal to the prosecution’s case, since the incident happened in the night when vision is impaired. It is trite law that the prosecution is only required to call the number of witnesses sufficient to establish its case beyond reasonable. - Ishaya V. State (2019) 19 WRN 131. - Bassey V. State (2019) 28 WRN 75. - Nweze V. State (1996) 2 NWLR pt 428 p 1. PW4 having testified to the fact that he was inflicted with a matchet cut on the shoulder of his right hand by the 3rd Defendant with a cutlass, failure to call the person who recovered the cutlass is not fatal to the prosecution’s case since the said witness under cross examination, testified that there was light everywhere around the scene of the incident including the scene of the crime which lasted for about 10 minutes. In view of all the foregoing and the evidence of PW4 which was corroborated substantially by the evidence of 1st Defendant as DW1 and confirmed by the evidence of the 2nd Defendant as DW2, I am satisfied that the prosecution in addition to Exhibits A and B, has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the 3 Defendants in respect of all the 3 counts charges and found you Hussaini Shehu, Sama’ila Abdullahi and Sama’ila Sulaiman guilty for the offences of Page 24 of 27