because it appeared elaborate as to take care of the 1 one issue formulated by the defendant’s counsel that is:“Whether from the totality of the evidence adduced before the court by the prosecution it could be said that the prosecution has proved the charge against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt.” Now, let me begin by stating at the onset that in every criminal trial, the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in line with the provision of section 135 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011, which provides thus; “If the commission of a crime by a party to any proceeding is directly in issue in any proceeding civil or criminal, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.” See also the case of GODWIN IGABELE V. STATE (2007) 2 NCC 125. Defence counsel in arguing the issue as court aimed in final written address submitted that PW1 and 2 are the parent of the guardian of the victims who roles in this case were no more that what they were told by the victims as they are not eye witnesses to the alleged crime while PWs 3 and 6 are investigating police officers, their testimonies end with specific role they played in the course of investigations of the case none of them is an eye witness, learned defence counsel submitted further that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is base on hearsay and not what they personally saw, therefore their evidence being a hearsay, cannot passed the admissibility letters provided for by the Evidence Act. Submitted more so that PW4 and PW5 apart from being minors under the age of 14 years they are not truthful witnesses, there are a lot of Page 4 of 23