c' 0 of an incident. The t ncertaint:y as to the elate of the alleged incident does not detract fro1 1 the fact of the death of the deceased . Defendant's learned Coltnsel also submitted that a Doctor's evident e is sine-qua-non in t ,is case coupled with evidence of identification of the deceased be ·o re the doctor that performed post-mortem because the death w 1s not instantaneous . On her part, learnec Prosecution Counsel posited that it is the law that the trial court , "lay in the absence of medical evidence decide the cause of dea h ·on the evidence before him showing unequivocally the 11( ws between the deceased and the unlawful act of the .accused, and ·ef'erred to the case of The Stc1te v. Akpuenya (1976) The position of the law on this issu e ha s lon g been s ettled in a number of judicial I recedents. In Njoku v. State (l 992) 8 NWLR (Pt.262) 714 @ 72 2 1992 LPELR; the Court or' Appeal held that where the totality oJ evidence adduced by the prosecution showed un mistakabJy that ti e body on which a doctor performed a post mortem examination was that of the deceased, a separate witness to testify as to the ide tity of the corpse, though desirable is not a necessity. The Court vent on to quote extensively from the decision of the Supreme Cot -t in Enewoh v. The State (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt.14-S) 4-69 and rest ,ted thus : "The position ho rever is that where there are !acts from Which it can be nferred that the corpse examined by the doctor was that of he deCeased, the evidence of the person, dead or alive, said o have identified the corpse is not indispensable .. . In effect, the neecI for anyone to identify the 5 .,,\ ' )·. }~