13 ingredient of the crime is put, or deemed to be put in issue by him to be proved by the prosecution. SEE: ALOR VS. STATE (1997) 4 NWLR (PT. 501) 511. ~wosu vs. STATE (Supra). As I said earlier, in order to sustain a conviction for murder, the prosecution must prove the death of the person the defendant is alleged to have killed , the cause of death and that it was the act of the defendant that caused the death of the deceased. The prosecution cannot succeed in establishing the guilt of the defendant in the absence of any of these elements as it will vitiate any conviction on a charge of murder. SEE : RVS . ABENGOWE (1936) 3 WACA 85. OKOROGBA VS . STATE (1992) 2 NWLR (PT. 222) 224.• NWOSU VS . STATE (Supra) . This is so b~cause before it can be said rightly that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, every ingredient which constitutes the total ity of the offence must be established . This means that if there is a failure to establish one element of the offence, then there is a failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. SEE : OKEKE VS . STATE (1995) 4 NWLR (PT. 392) . ISIBOR VS . STATE (2002) 3 NWLR (PT. 754) 250. Having dealt with the salient and important point in this case and after a careful consideration of the entire evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case of murder against the defendant and the sole issue for determination ought to, and is hereby resolved against the prosecution . The combined effect of section 135( 1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 and section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as Amended) is that under the Nigerian judicial system, the prosecution has a fundamental duty of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt against a defendant,