1. The accused must be free from fault in bringing the encounter. 2. There must be present, an impending peril to life or of great bodily harm, either real or so apparent as to create honest belief of an existing necessity. 3. There must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat. 4. There must have been a necessity for taking life, on this see the case of Abraham v. State (Supra) cited by the prosecution counsel in his written address. It is to be noted that considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution in prove of the charge against the defendant and also his testimony as DW1 this ingredients of the defence of self defence is nonexistent. As I have stated earlier the defence of self defence cannot avail the defendant in this case. I have also considered other defences available to the defendant and I’m of the view that non can avail him. In conclusion, this Court as I have earlier stated is of the view that the prosecution have proved the charge of Culpable Homicide not punishable with death contrary to Section 192(4) of the Penal Code and punishable under Section 194 of the same law against the defendant and I so hold. The defendant Muhammadu Danmeri having been found guilty of the offence of Culpable Homicide not punishable with death contrary to Section 192(4) of the Penal Code and punishable under Section 194 of the same Law I hereby convict you as such. Ibrahim Ruwa: By way of allocutus, the convict is a first time offender with no criminal antedecedent. He is a family man with one wife and many children 20