11 LORI & ANOR VS. THE STATE (Supra). UDEDIBIA VS. STATE (1976) 11 S. C. 133. ADEPETU VS . STATE (1998) 9 NWLR (PT. 5_65) 185. Accordingly, for circumstantial evidence to be believed , and to justify the inference of guilt, the evidence must:(a) be unequivocal and positive; (b) irresistibly point to the guilt, of the defendant; and (c) not be co-existing circumstances that place doubt on the inference that the defendant and no other person is guilty of the offence _or incompatible with the innocence of the defendant. SEE : FATOYINBO VS . A. G., WESTERN (1966) WNLR 4. NIGERIA LORI & ANOR VS . STATE (Supra) . OMOGODO VS . STATE (1981) 5 S. C. 24. GABRIEL VS. STATE (1989) 5 NWLR (PT. 122) 457. OKEREKE VS . STATE (1998) 3 NWLR (PT. 540) 75 . Applying these principles to the facts in the instant case, it cannot be disputed that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not positive , cogent, compelling and irresistible that the defendant was responsible for the murder of the deceased. It cannot also be said that the defendant and no other person was responsible for the death of the deceased , From· the analysis made above, lope hole exists or the possibility of any other person committing the offence other than the defendant. As a matter of fact , there is no circumstantial evidence linking the defendant with the murder of the deceased apart from the fact that he resurfaced in the hospital looking for the deceased Uzoamaka Offer. As such , the defendant