• :C m urde r, the prosec ,tion must prove beyond reasonable doubt as follo w s: l. ii. ii i. iv. that the dec1 ased died; that his deat 1 vyas not a natural death; I /I that the ac, usE'd person did something or omitted to do s omething h ~ had a duty to do by law; that the sa d act or omission resulted in harm to the deceased ; a1 d V. that the saic deceased died as a result of the said injury or har m See Olabode v. Tl e State (200B) 2 WRN 16 7, Ogba v. State (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.222 /, (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 42B) 1, The State v. Aibangbee (1998 3 NWLR (Pt.84) 548. On the firs t ingrecli , nt to prove th at th e deceased di e d, it is not in iss ue thus not dispu eel that the deceased in tact died . ln the light of th e undisputed evid nee lee! herein 1 a m satisfied th at Philip Meka in fact died . Defendant's Counsel submitted that the prosecution witnesses failed to tell the Court ti e exact date of the alleged murder but that Defendant testified hat she went to her parents' house to harvest h fruits on the 5, of~ arch 2013 and not the 17 th of March 2013 and that she did not go 1 iere cit all on the said 17th of March 2013 . With all respect to learne, Defendant's Counsel, proof of the exact date of murder is not one of the ingredients to be proved in order to esta blish a case of lT 1rder. The failure to prove the exact date of the alleged murder to my mind is not fatal to the case of the prosecution . The fac is that the deceased died allegedly as a res ult ' .~ '(N _i 4