From the foregoing and the evidence of PW1 and PW2 relating to the dying declaration of late Salamatu Umar, it is very clear that the deceased Salamatu Umar has identified the Defendant as the person who inflicted the injuries on her person during the armed robbery incident and from which injury she never recovered till she died. The dying declaration also portrays the Defendant as one of the armed robbers who participated in the armed robbery incident that took place in the house of PW1. This position of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 relating to the dying declaration of late Salamatu Umar, was never challenged by the defence. It is trite law that where the prosecution leads credible, compelling and unequivocal evidence fixing the accused person at the scene of crime as a participant as in this case, the prosecution is deemed to have proved the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. - Egbufor V. State (2019) 15 WRN 60 at 76 lines 35 per KEkere Ekun JSC. - Anakwe V. State (2014) 30 WRN 1. It is also trite law that when a witness testifies on a material fact, the law requires or expect the other party if he does not accept the evidence as true, to cross-examine the witness as an indication that he does not accept the evidence as true, and where he fails to do so, the trial court can take his silence as an acceptance that he does not dispute the evidence. - Ishaya V. State (2019) 19 WRN 131 at 151 line 5-10, per Augie JSC. - Simon V. State (2017) LPELR 41988. - Oforlete V. State (2000) 7 WRN 80. Page 15 of 21