was told that another person ran out too . He assumes, suspects it is the defendant, but suspicion cannot and can never ground a conviction , for this principle of law, see the case of ONYENANKEYA v THE STATE (1964) 1 NNLR page 34 . Th_ere is no doubt that there was a breaking in and his younger brother identified but he was not. I hereby discharge and acquit him on this 1 count too. On count three - Stealing - the prosecution could not prove he stole the alleged properties but he has admitted that the property of Pwl was in his room . He also admits that his brother is not good and a criminal , this shows he knows that the properties may have been stolen . When he noticed that his brother was up to no good and a criminal , why allow him to keep suspicious properties in his abode? The defence has not rebutted this evidence and · principle of law . I find him guilty of rece iving stolen properties as provided for in Section 279 of the Administrat ion of Criminal Justice Law 2010. I also from the circumstance hold him liable of stealing as charged as the properties moved from the_house of Pwl to his own house without " wings". He has not satisfied me of his " meeting" with his brother in the bushJrack. I hold he is privy to stealing from the circumstances of this case . On the count for unlawful and wilful damage to property, I hold also that there is no proof that it is the defendant that caused the unlawful and wilful damage to property of Pwl. The circumstantial evidence cannot be used in this situation unless he was positively identified inside the house as there is a doubt here . It could be caused by one person unlike stealing of properties which' may be heavy to move . But to wreck property or wreck havoc, one person can cause as much damage . I therefore discharge and acquit him on this score as a court is not supposed to speculate as is the situation here - -- - ·-· Th is is t he judgm ent del iver ed by Hon. Ju sti ce l) .A. 0 11yefulu on 24/ 7/ 2018 Page 13