proof must be beyond reasonable doubt. See Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended). The Defence Counsel in his written address submits that it becomes imperative for the complainant to discharge the burden of proving the charge against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. That this burden of standard of proves are as exemplified in Sections 132 and 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011. That the import of these provisions is consistent with the presumption of innocence which the defendant enjoy by virtue of Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). It is the submission of the Prosecution Counsel that in any criminal trial the burden of proof lies on the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond reasonable doubt does not means beyond all shadow of doubt. Reference was made to the cases of BEN VS. THE STATE (2005) 1 NCC at P. 270; ASUQUO BASSEY VS. STATE (2012) 7 NCC P. 477; and Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011. The above submissions are in tandem with the provision of the law as earlier stated and thus as also provided by the provision of Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended) and I so hold. In order to secure a conviction for the offence of Culpable Homicide not punishable with death contrary to Section 194 of the Sokoto State Penal Code Law 2019, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients: 21