f"'-o- '-''-''-' • . . -.., .,. ..__.,.__,,II. I.:> ...n.:U.I\...U OIJU lllul J--'IUUI ueyuI1u ft=d.::>Ullc::1l.Jle llUUUl uoe:, not mean beyond every shadow of doubt as it is enough for the prosecution to prove sufficient evidence to prove a high degree of probability, for this principle of law, see the case of ONAFOWOKAN v STATE (1987) 7 SCNJ at page II 238 . It is also the law that where this onus of proof is achieved by the prosecution, it is left for the defence to rebut same, see Section 135(3) of the Evidence Act 2011. With these principles of law in view I shall ascribe probative value to the evidence before me . I shall first of all raise an issue for determination; which is simply . "whether the prosecution has discharged the burden of proof which lies on them beyond reasonable doubts and if yes, has the defence rebutted same and proved reasonable.doubt? 11 • The prosecution called the complainant one Ezeanochikwa Victor who testified 0 as Pwl. It is his evidence that he came home (to his village home) to meet a - scene of utter destruction of h_is house interior and properties, also that his p,operties were stolen . He surprised the younger brother o"f the defendant who escaped and was not arrested. Later, the defendant was arrested and the 1 • _ -- ---