10 v go home, it is natural that the deceased Uzoamaka Offor would be in possession of the entrance door key to the flat. This would therefore dism_ iss the proposition that the defendant was in the flat before the deceased came upstairs. Since the P.W .2 appearp to be sure that the defendant left the hospital, the only reasonable inference to be drawn is that it cannot be true that the P.W.4 came back and locked the gate and entrance door of the hospital by 1O p.m. as he claimed. It must be pointed out that the fact that Exhibits "C", "D", "0 1 " "E" and "F" which : are black purse, two Nokia handset phones, text book and exercise book were recovered from the residence of the deceased suggest that she went up to her residence when she left the P.W .2 and Chika Ugwu . In the same vein , since the deceased was wearing the left leg of the sandal she wore earlier in the day suggests that she had not retired to bed before she met her death . It should be borne in mind that it is in evidence that the right leg of her sandal was not seen in her flat or within the premises and thereby suggesting the inference that she may have met her death outside her flat. It should be appreciated that the available evidence had dismissed the inference that she fell down from the upstairs . In the circumstances , I must agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that the mere fact that the defendant resurfaced in the hospital looking for the deceased after telling the P.W .2 he was going home is not sufficient circumstantial evidence that he committed the offence . This is so more especially when you weigh the fact that the P.W .2 was aware that the likelihood of his· getting a bike at that time of the night was very remote . It is true that there is no yardstick by which any circumstantial evidence can be measured before a conviction can be entered against a defendant charged with the offence for which the circumstantial evidence is the only one available. Each case depends on its own facts but the one test which such evidence must satisfy is that it should lead conclusively and indisputably to the guilt of the defendant. The Supreme Court has held in several decided cases , t_ h at the evidence in support of conviction must be positive, cogent,: compelling and irresistible to convince the court of the guilt of the defendant and inconsistent with any other rational conclusions. There must be no other co-existing circumstances which can weaken such inference. SEE : THE STATE VS. EDOBOR (1975) 9 -11 S. C. 69.