causing the title documents of plot SS1, Jikwoyi Extension III to be made in favour of Pax Education Resources an unregistered company belonging to the 1st Defendant. (3) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt against the 1st Defendant, the offence of forgery of an application form of Fine Trust Academy in its policy file No. 9764 from 1997 to read 2005 with intent to cause injury to Effiong Nsugunsi the promoter of Fine Trust Academy so as to support the claim of title to plot SS1 Jikwoyi Extension III in favour of Pax Education Resources. ISSUE ONE In his submission, learned Counsel for the 1st Defendant stated that it is a well settled principle of law that the burden of proof in a criminal case lies squarely on the prosecution and that this burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout and does not shift. He relied on the case of OSUAGU V STATE, (2016)16 NWLR (pt 1537) page 31 at 67 paragraph B-E. At paragraphs 4.3 -4.8 of the address, learned Counsel for st the 1 Defendant submitted that to prove conspiracy, the prosecution must prove the ingredients set out in the case of YAKUBU V STATE, (2014)8 NWLR (pt1408) page 111 at 124 paragraphs C-E. Further, Counsel submitted that to secure a conviction for the offence of conspiracy, the prosecution must establish some overt acts as held in the case of OMOTOLA V STATE (2007) 7 NWLR (pt 1139) page 148 at 192-193 paragraphs H-A. He stated that it is settled law that the circumstantial evidence that will warrant a convictions for the offence of conspiracy must be of such quality that irresistibly compels the Court to make an inference as to the guilt of the Accused/Defendant and leave no reasonable grounds for speculation that some other person other than the Accused/Defendant committed the 20