./ d the record of proceedings, exhibits and appreciated the legal l ha~e rea 1 submissions of both learned counsel . It is conceded that only one issue really arises for determination namel y, 6 ;'Whetli~r the Prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt to warrant the conviction of the Defendant"? The Defendant is charged under Section 4 ( 1) (c) of the Criminal Code, Cap 36, Vol. II, Revised Laws of Anambra State 1991 · lt provides thus; Section (4) - When , an offence is committed, each of the following persons is deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence and may be charged ·with actually committing it, that is to say; ( c) "Every person who aids another person in committing the offence,". ln the instant case, the Defendant was said to have aided one Tochukwu and Ogbonna no\v at large, to enter the dwelling house of one Chief Donatus Obiez~ by opening the gate for them with inten t to steal, and they actually stok t,vo motorcycles and one generator belonging to the tenants in the compound. There is no doubt that the burden in criminal cases is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. See OSUAG\\'U VS THESTATE 2013 l\i1RSCJ Vol. 20 . See Section 138 of the Evidence Act. This burden does not shift. It is also settled that in going about the process of discharging this burden thrust upon the prosecution, they could do so by -one or more of the following ways namely~ l. 2. 3. Evidence of eye witness to the crime. Confessional statement of the Defendant Circumstantial evidence. See the case of DAU VS STATE (2016) 7 NWLR PART 1510 Pg 83, Ratio 3. . ' ln the instant case, from the totality of the evidence before the court, it is clear that the Defendant did not make a confessional statement. This is so because the volfmtariness of the Defendant's confessional statement was st1_ccessfully put in issue and the statement was rejected. Also there was no eye Wltness to the commission of the crime . All that the case of the s ·s hinged upon is circumstantial evidence. CERrr