created serious doubt that the 3rd Defendant participated in the forgery of exhibits 1 and 2. forged or In conclusion, Counsel for the 3rd Defendant urged me to resolve the issues in favour of the 3rd Defendant and hold the view that the prosecution failed to discharged the burden of proof on all the counts against the 3rd Defendant and he urged me to discharge and acquit the 3rd Defendant. The prosecution in his final written address distilled four issues for determination as follows: (a) Whether the prosecution has proved the one count of conspiracy against the Defendants beyond reasonable doubt. (b) Whether the prosecution has proved the one count charge of obtaining money under false pretence against the Defendants beyond reasonable doubt. (c) Whether the prosecution has proved the two counts charge of using as genuine against the Defendants beyond reasonable doubt. ISSUE ONE At paragraph 3.1.2 of the address, the learned prosecuting Counsel submitted to the effect that conspiracy is one of the offences which can be predicated on circumstantial evidence which is evidence not of the fact in issue but of other facts from which the fact in issue can be inferred. The prosecution submitted that the overt act or omission which evidences conspiracy is the actus reus and every conspirator must be referable and very often is the only proof of the criminal agreement. He relied on the cases of OBIAKOR V STATE, (2002) 10 NWLR (pt 776) page 612 at 628 – 629, DEVIN V STATE, (1994) 5 NWLR (pt 346) page 522 at 534 and EDE V FRN (2001) 1 NWLR (pt 695) page 502 at 512 – 513. 20