12 is only being ·suspected to have committed the offence. This is made clear by the evidence of the P.W.2 - P.W.6 on the point which is bundle of suspicion as submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant. It is clear that because the defendant resurfaced in the hospital looking for the deceased after he had informe,o the P.W .2 that he .was going home finally for the day and later found the corpse that made the witnesses to suspect that he · was responsible for the murder of the deceased. This is demonstrated by the P.W.4 who admitted under cross examination that in his extra judicial statement which he made when the facts of the matter were still fresh in his memory, he stated clearly that he suspects the defendant because from the statements of the nurses , he slept in the flat that night before the incident happened . This was also manifested in the evidence of the P.W.5 who testified that at the station the defendant was shivering and the other ·doctors were encouraging him and when the defendant was making his statement suddenly he dropped his pen and started telling him the story of what happened . But under cross examination he admitted that in his statement to the Police he did not state that the defendant was shivering and the other doctors were encouraging him . He admitted also that in his statement he stated clearly that the defendant told him his story of what happened before the statement making . And above all , the P.W .6 even testified that the defendant collected the touch light from the nurse in the pretext to look for Uzoamaka Offor, but the motive was for him to clean up everyth ing that will incriminate him . However, the possibility exists that another person may have committed the crime and cleverly covered his track to avoid suspicion . In all , I have looked at the tenor of the evidence adduced by the P.W.1 - P.W.6, and as I said earlier, I am afraid that the evidence is mere suspicion . It is now settled law that suspicion , no matter how strong and convincing cannot displace the heavy duty on the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt to the hilt by admissible evidence . SEE : OKEREKE VS . STATE (Supra) . I am therefore satisfied that the prosecution failed woefully to prove this element or ingredient of the offence of murder. This has made it an academic exercise to consider the other remaining ingredients of the offence of murder. When a person is standing trial for a crime , generally every material point or every essential