makes it true, since the Defendant gave evidence as to his whereabouts, manner of arrest and how his statement was obtained, which according to the Learned Counsel to the Defendant were not contradicted. lt was emphasized that the information in this case was that the Defendant stole money from First Bank Plc, while the statement of the complainant dated 22nd of February,2022 stated that it was observed that the expected balance was not as it ought to be, as some monies had been taken away" It was emphasized that the circumstances surrounding the taking of Exhibit A causes serious doubts on Exhibit 'A. lt was stressed that PW2 suggested that the Defendant be lured to pay the missing money. lt was also stated that failure of the Bank Manager and the security personnel to make statements to the police smirks of poor investigation by the police. lt was also submitted that inconsistencies and doubts are thrown up in this case. This Court was finally urged to discharge and acquit the Defendant. On lssues Nos. I and ll respectively, it is trite that the prosecution in this case has the burden of proving the guilt of the Defendant, since, the onus rest upon it to prove it's case beyond reasonable doubt. This Court refers to the Cases Saidu V" The State, supra at 97, and Solola V. The State, supra at 1098. This Court also adds the Case of Bala Alhaji llyasu V. The State (2021) 1 NWLR (Pt" 1756) 1 at 17 " lndeed in the Case of Wadata lsah V. The State (2019) All FWLR (Pt. 980) 535 at 560, the Supreme Court, per His Lordship, Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, stated" "Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof of a mathematical certainty. lt also does not mean proof beyond all reasonable doubt. A charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt when the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of the evidence addressed is compelling and reliable to establish the guilt of the accused person. There must be a high degree of probability that the accused person committed the offence. The doubt must be of a reasonable man. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not achieved by the prosecution calling several witnesses to testify. The Court is only interested in the testimony of a quality witness, so long as the charge is not one that needs corroboration. See Egwumi V. State (2013) 2 SC (Pt. 1 11) 119". Furthermore, statutorily encapsulated is the provision of S. 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, as amended, which mandatorily makes it incumbent upon the prosecution to prove it's case beyond reasonable doubt. lt should be noted that the burden on proof never shifts, as in this instant case, and it is crucially 10