There are three modes of establishing the guilt of a Defendant" These are (a) Direct evidence (b) circumstantial evidence (c) confessional statement. See the case of Abirifom V. The state (2013) 224 LRCN 1 at 5. See also Samson Emeka V. The state (2012) I ACLR 401 a|421. The burden of proof in this instant case rests with the prosecution, and, the prosecution must prove every ingredient of the offences as contained in the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The case of Obriki Kingsley. V. The State (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1191) 593 at 601 610 refers. See further the case of Yongo & Anor. V. C.O.P" (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt.257) 36 at 50. - This Court also agrees and accepts that the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of encapsulated or stated in the case of Okoroji V. The State, supra, as cited by the Learned Counsel to the Defendant. This Court also refers to the case of Dr. Olu Onagoruwa V. The State (1993) 7 FWLR (Pt. 303) 02. Counts I and ll of the charge deal with the offence of stealing. Furthermore, issues numbers I and ll, can be conveniently compressed into a one flowing issue and resolved accordingly. This Court also observes that the arguments of the Learned Counsel to the Defendant touched on Counts I and ll together. From the evidence before this /court, the Defendant worked with PW1 for a period of six months plus from 11th of April, 2O1g to the 30th of September, 2019, before she, the Defendant opted for going back to pursue her education in school. Also, from the evidence, the Defendant was a sale Representative in charge of phones and accessories, as well as managing the proceeds that comes from sale of recharge cards, and, then remit the monies so realized to PW1's account. The evidence of PW1 , PWz, and DW1, the Defendant herself concur on this. Thereafter, from the evidence, PW1, then requested the Defendant to do an account reconciliation within two weeks. Before going back to school. The evidence of PW1 shows that the Defendant did not do this account reconciliation despite being given enough time to do so" PW1 stated that the Defendant claimed she was ill, and, so did not do it, and, after an inordinate period of time, was forced to go to the police to report. The Defendant, DW1 in her defence, and, in her testimony before the court told this Court that she prepared that account herself, presented same to PW1, who rejected same. Her statement to the police, exhibit C, which was voluntarily made states at page 2 thereof. 1.4