rhc Defendant is charged for the offence of Murder contrary to Section ., . . . , , -c··i:" )' (> Vol · 2, Revised Laws of ·A nambra Stale of Nioeria 1991 · _/4~ l )O 1 q .,- , . v lt provides as follows : Scctio 1 27 4 ( \) - Subject to the provisions of th is section, any person who coin rn ts the o!Ti. : 11cc of mur<lcr shall be sentenced tc death . I r; r\s is usual in criminal Prosecution, the burden is on the State 1.e. Proscl ut ion lo 1xove the case beyond reasonable doubt in order lo sustain a convic tion . As a matter of fact , the burden does not shift. ,, Sec Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011. e OBA GABRIEL ADEPOGU ADEYORA Sec al so the case of VS THE STATE (2012 ) 30 W RN 67 at 88 -89 where the court '. tatcd thus; "By the pr<>vision of Section 138 (1) of the £, ,itlence Act, the standard of proof in all criminal trials is proof beyond reasonable tloubt ". lndeei:;, it is the case of NWOSU VS THE ST A TE 1998 8 NWLR (PART 562) 4333 at 444, the comt staled "In all criminal trials, the burden ofproof is alll'ays 011 the prosecution in proving beyow.' reasonable doubt the g11ilt oft 'fie accuse,L Failure to do so will automatically lead to the dischar1:e of the accused". · In O ZAKI VS THE STATE 1990 1 N\\'LR P ART 124 ' Po 9·2 , tile . . · o lurllte1 slaleJ ; · COUI1 · "What this simply translates to is that where there i.'i any doubt ll.4i to guilty o_f the Acc11sed. such doubt 11111st be resofred in favour of the Accused, in this case the Appellant". Now, on the 1nean1ng and scope of the phra, e roof be . d doubt . the com t 1n . · - ' P Jon reasonable ~E~I!FiEEol~UE COPYl l-1. L.I . . DKOt\JK ~~rt ,~AT~~~t~]