1. That the death of a human took place; 2. That such death was caused by the defendant; 3. That the defendant intended by his act to cause death or that the defendant intended by his act to cause bodily harm or injury as was likely to cause death or that the defendant caused death by a rash or negligent act: See MUSTAPHA V. STATE (2021) LPELR – 56471 (CA); and 4. That, in the circumstances of the case, the act of the defendant was not such as would amount to Culpable Homicide punishable with death: See SALEH V. STATE (2015) LPELR – 40399 (CA). Lest we not forget that the burden of proving the above ingredients rest solely on the prosecution. That burden never shifts. In discharging the said burden placed on the prosecution by the law, the prosecution can do so in any of the following: 1. By direct evidence of witnesses; 2. By the confession of the accused person; and 3. By circumstantial evidence. See AGOOLA V. THE STATE (2016) JELR 37013 (CA); (2013) SCNJ 683 at 688. In the case at hand, putting into consideration the ways mentioned above that the prosecution should follow in proving the ingredients of an offence, it is on record that the prosecution called 3 witnesses i.e. PW1, PW2 & PW3. Thus, on the first ingredient it is the submission of the provision that from the evidence before the 22