J . 3 that it was the defendant who murdered the deceased? The sole issue for determination in this charge is, therefore!, whether the prosecution from the circumstances of this case and the evidence adduced , has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the defendant who murdered the deceased? The facts of this case fall within a narrow compass and are in most aspects not being disputed . However, in order to secure the conviction of a person charged with murder as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the parties in their final written addresses, the prosecution m~st prove beyond reasonable doubt the following :I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. the death of a human being; the cause _of the death ; that the death was caused by the act of the defendant; that the act or acts were done with the intention of causing death or grievous bodily harm ; and that the defendant knew that death would be the probable consequence of his act or acts. SEE : NWOSU VS . STATE (1998) 8 NWLR (PT. 562) 433 . NWAEZE VS . STATE (1996) 2 NWLR (PT. 428) 1., ADEKUNLE VS . STATE (2002) 4 NWLR (PT. 756) 169. In a bid to prove the ingredients of murder against the defendant, the P.W.1 who is the father of the deceased Uzoamaka Offer rd testified that on the 23 day of August, 2011 the deceased visited him at about 4 p.m. and informed him that she will be going back to school having secured an admission . Later, she left for where she was living at Chioma Hospital where she was working as a nurse. It must be stressed that unknown to the P.W.1, that visit was the last time he will see his daughter alive. In the night of the 24 th day of August, 2011 at about 2 a.m. his sister-in-law called him on phone and told him that there was problem at Chioma Hospital , Uruagu Nnewi and he should go there. In the morning , he went to Chioma Hospital Uruagu Nnewi with Chief Yagazie Sunday Eze his brother. When he got there , he saw the corpse of his daughter Uzoamaka Offor in a pool of blood . When the Police