the Prosecution no C Court. This doubt Archibong v. The S 202 . The second requin resulted lrom the disputed. Defenda1 Onyenankeya v. Th , presenting vital piece of evidence before this must inure in favour of the Defendant, see .1te (2006) LPELR - SC.253/200:3; (2006) 5 SCNJ ment to prove that the death of the deceased ict of the Defendant is, in this instant case, t's Counsel referred to the cases of Frank State (1964) NMLR 34, R v. Owe (1961)1 ALL NLR 680, R v. Agber {owe (1963) 3 WACA 85 and submitted that the prosecution failed 1 , show that the death of the decedsed resulted from the act of the [ )fenda n t. Again the· only eye· ' itness PW3 testified as follows "I met Nweke with his children ,bout nine ·of them beating ,rnd hitting my husband . They gave 1im a big blow ilt the back and he fainted . They all 1·an away as he f, ntecl ... " By this t es timony it would be act of the deceased 1" Defend nt ancl his children that hit the deceased victim With a plc1nk/stick hat led to his tainting, and not the act of the Defendant and whe1 1er or not that act caused his death has already been adjudged doub ful. Defendant herself testified in her evidence in -chief and under cross -examination that she did not beat the cleceasecl victim and lid not have any quarrel with him . Defendant's learne, Counsel also submitted that there is no evidence of police i1 vestigation of this matter and that absence of same nmoums to wi · 1holding of evidence by the Prosecution, which if pi-offered before t e Court would have been unfavourc1b/e to the prosecution, and con rnenclecl the case of Aituma v. The State (200(,J lO NWLR (Pt. 9 89) a 4-52 ·sc-ct,·on 167(cl) of ·tt , - . 8 r' · -1 · 1c ,__., v,c <::~nee Act. ·r I ( •,II ,.