“Circumstancial evidence is a series of circumstances leading to the inference or conclusion of guilt when direct evidence is not available. Evidence which although not directly establishing the existence of facts required to be proved, is admissible as making the facts in issue probable by reason of its connection with or in relation to the extent that it is sometimes regarded as of higher value than direct evidence, which may or can be perjured or mistaken.” Furthermore the Supreme Court per Ikechi Francis Ogbuagu JSC in the case of Jua V. State {2010} 43 WRN 1 at 39 held thus:“The circumstancial evidence that will meet the requirement of onus proof in criminal cases, is the evidence that fixes the accused to the crime with sufficient cogency and excludes the possibility that someone else had committed the crime.” - Pius V. State {2019} Vol. 22 WRN 105 - Fatoyinbo V. AG Western Nigeria {1966} NMLR 4 - Akpan V. State {2001} 53 WRN 1 - Ukorah V. State {1980} 1-2 SC 116 It is the humble view of this court that the evidence of PW4 and PW5 against the 3rd defendant are positive and point irresistibly to the 3rd defendant in connection with the offence of illegal possession of firearms. The evidence is incompatible with the innocence of the 3rd defendant in relation to the 3rd count charges as well as incompatible with the innocence of the 1st and 2nd defendants in relation to the 1st and 2nd counts charges. 30