12 PATIENCE OMADARE & ANOR vs \ _✓ - ATT. GEN OF FEDERATION (2013) 32 WRN 129 at 142 -143, had this to say; "Pro<?{ heyond reasonable 1/oubt however does not pr()(~{ beyond fl 'CIJ s/ui(IOH' vf dvubt, but the cvitlcnce adduced by the Prosecution must he strong i aJ:ainst the Accused person as to leave onlv a remote possibility in hisfav()UT. Wh en there is n~thing short of this, the prosecution has discharged its burden anti the trial court may co nvict". JJJCl/11 In order to prove the offence of rriurder, the burden placed on the Pro::i~culion 1s Lo prove and establish the following ingredients, namely; a. b. c. That 'death of a human being took plac ~ i.e. that the deceased died. Th at tile death \,vas caused by the Acc Lsed. Th at the act of the Accused that caused the death was done with the i il lcnlio11 of causing death or that the accused knc\N that death wil I be the probable consequence of this act. See r 1c Supre me Cou1i case of HARUNA VS AG. FED ERATION 2012 9 NWLR PART 1206 Pg 4 I 9 I{atio 1. See a !so the case of GAMBO MUSA VS STATE 2009 39 NSCQR Vol. 39· at 392. IGABELE VS THE STATE 2006 6 NWLR PART 975 Pg 100. On th e preliminary issues, it must be borne in mind that the guilt of the Acc u-:,eJ rnay b(.; proved by all or any of the follow ing; a. b. C. . Confessional statement. C1 1u1111sla11Lial evidence Di rect evidence i.e. evidence of an eye witness . OKLJDO VS STATE 2011 3 NWLR PART :f.&209. CERTIFIEfJ I""'~~ ~-- .HJ GH CfJLJI" 1 f '' 7t7w• : .-il / i,~,-,:· -- n/ - 0) J , - l r~ :1}{L:op ;-1 ;µ;;_ __________ ~ ~,:o' r-l. u. c11<ur,;v ~.A . C. R~ ;;( i~~;~ J ~--:~~ r F. f2::~ .:.-k l~---~