I .. The question at this pomt 1s whhth ether e .pr_osecuf I1hon proved the case ble doubt so as to warrant t e conv1ct10n o t e Defe ndant. beyond reasona Defendant is basically charged for the offence of aiding one ..1,,.:, and Qgbonna in the commission of the alleged offence. Th Toe h~~u 1 PWl was one of the complainants whose items allegedly got missing. In his testimony, he never mentioned the alleged Tochukwu or Ogbonna. It was clear from the evidtnce in' chief of PWI that the reason why the Defendant was reported was that he was being suspected since he was the security man that was in charge of the house . Indeed under cross-examination, he, the PWl has this to say Q - Did you see the Defendant remove your motorcycle or generator? Ans - r did not but he is the security man . 0 - Did an y neighbor say he sa,v him? An s - Nobod y saw him and nobody said he savv him . PW2 was the IPO . His thrump card was the extra judicial statement held out to be confessionary. Incidentally consequent upon a trial within ~al, the State . statement were rejected on grounds of being involuntary and marked Rejected 1 & 2. One of the missing motorcycles belonging to Okechukwu Chijioke was said to have been recovered by :Vigilante men as abandoned on the road and released on bond to him. · Hear the PW2 under cross-examination, Q - None of the complainants told you that they saw the Defendant commit the offence? Ans - They did not say so . They were only suspecting him . Again the said PW2 did not say anything about the alleged Tochukwu or Ogbonna, who were the people allegeqly aided. , rd The 3 and last witness for the prosecution was PW3 i.e. Paul Okafor. In his evidence in c)lief, he alleged that he collected the phone of the Defendant and fou nd out that incoming calJs were deleted. If the calls were ,11'~!~,~ipa'T"'~or...,-f-.1-\\.-J...R . . .T~r . -.· I i· J