C body of the deCl :.1sed to a doctor is not a sine qua non murder e:1ses. " See also Edem v. ·::' he State (1972) 4 SC 160. in all The Court of Appeal had earlier in the same case of Enewoh v. State (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt 119) 982 117 held that it is not in every case necessary to call tl ,e evidence of the person who identified the corpse for autopsy I urposes . If a deceased died in circumstances in which the cause a 1d manner of death were shown clearly by evidence, n1edical e' idence can be dispensed with . See also State v. Okpala (2012) 3 N NLR (Pt. 1287) 388 @ p. 408, Afosi v. State (2013) LPELR. ln Amusa v . The S :ate (2001) LPELR CA/1/66/93 the Court of Appeal he ld that "Wh ere the id ~ntification of a body is in issue, absence of evidence direc or circumstanti a l of the identification of the corps e examin ·d is fatal where medical evidence of cause of death is vital. · 'b.e _desi ra_b_ili _ty tQ c;_qll_ c!S a witne~s. the. _p_ers_on who id ~n_tift~ d the vi c; tim '_s d_e_0d_ b_o_dy to _the_ d_Qc.tor who n~rforw _e_d _the. n,it_Qpsy is_o~cess_ary_ ooly where _the__id~ntity of th. e bociy exam ne.rLb)". tbe _d_octor is_shr_ouµecl in do1,,1bt. Where the identity c n be inferred, such direct evidence is not essential. .." unc erlining mine. In th e instant case t 1e identity of the body of the deceased victim , Philip Meka is not i . doubt and the fact that th e deceased di ed is also not in doubt. He wever there is no evidence that a post morte m was performed on tr : corpse of the deceased talk less of identifying \' It,\< . '· 6