7 acceptable. It has been accepted without question that the Judges and sage of the law have laid it down that there is but one general rule of evidence, the best that the nature of the case will allow" See Omyehund v. Barker (1745) 1 Atkin 21 at p.49. Hence, it has always been accepted that where direct evidence of eye witnesses is not available, the Court may infer from the facts proved the existence of other facts that may logically tend to prove the guilt of an accused person. See ldowu v. State (1998) 11 NWLR (Pt. 574) 354 SC. Section 149 of the Evidence Act enables the Court to draw inferences from established facts bearing in mind the common course of natural events. Often times circumstantial evidence is all that is available on points on which direct evidence would ordinarily be required. " It is trite that drcumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence . It is the evidence of surrounding circumstances which by un-designed coincidence is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics. It is no derogation of evidence to say that it is circumstantial. "Circumstantial evidence may sometimes be conclusive , but it must always be narrowly examined , if only because evidence· of this kind may be fabricated to cast suspicion on another. Joseph commanded the steward of his house, "put my cup, the silver cup, in the sack's mouth of the youngest", and when the cup was found there, Benjamin 's brethren too hastily assumed that he must have stolen it. It is also necessary before drawing the inference of the accused 's guilt from circumstantial evidence to be sure that there are no other co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference." In STEPHEN UKORAH VS. THE STATE (1977) 4 S. C. 167 at 174, 176-177, IDIGBE, J. S. C. (as he then was) quoting with approval a passage from Emperor v Browning 39 I. C. 3~3 , stated :- "ln a case in which there is no direct evidence against the prisoner but only the kind of evidence that is called circumstantial, you have a two fold task,· you must first make up your minds as to what portio(Js of the circumstantial evidence have been established,· and then when you have that quite clear, : you must ask yourselves is this sufficient proof? It is not sufficient to say "If the accused is not the murderer, I know of no one I /,