proof beyond all shadow of doubt do not mean ths same fhing, Thp . Iatter places a heavier burden on the prosecution, il burden which is not known to our adjectival law.' See also.Dibie &, ors, v, ,SyateQlU7),IjPELR-}IL (SC), (2007) If at the conclusion of the whole case a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the trial Judge from the evidence presented by the prosecution against the accused person, then the accused person is entitled to an acquittal, as such ' doubt must bt resolved in his favour. See the c,ase of Ekpe v. Statei(f 994) 9 NWtn follows (SC) PP,_ 9,9,, paras. B-D; (1994) I,PELR-I0SS '(ft.S6S) 2$: were this court stated the larv ns I a "-1'' 66In considering the standard of proof required in criminal phosecution, the golden rule enunciated by the I{ouse of Lords in l{ootlmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutiorus(lg3s) AC 462; (1935) 25Crirninal .{ppeal Reports i!2, should always be the guide. If at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is'reasonable 49gnt, created by the evidence given either by the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the offence 4a