Administration of Criminal Justice law 20L7 and the intention of section 15(4) of the law and renders the statement Exhibit P3 inadmissible. He cited in aid the following, NNAJIOFOR V FED REP OF NIG (2019) 2 NWLR (PT. 1655) 157 AT L7O, OWHORUKE V COP 15 NWLR (PT, 1483) 557 AT 576, NWOSU v STATE (1986) 4 NWLR (PT' 35) 348 GD 359 PARAS. G-H. In conclusion, he posited that criminal trials particularly in capital offence must arrive at its decision through a process of reasoning which is analytical and commands confidence, RESPON DENT'S ARGUM ENTS ISSUE 1 on section 135 of the Evidence Act submitted that proof in criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt' And this means by Respondent relying credible evidence, proof of ingredients of the offence for which the accused is facing trial. He cited in aid; ITU V THE STATE (2016) 5 NWL& (2013) LPELR (PT. 150) 6443, EKPO V STATE (2018) LPELR-43843 (sc), ALABr V THE STATE (1993) LPELR-43843 (SC), UMAR V KANO STATE (2022) LpELR (CA), OTAKr V AG BENDEL STATE (1986) LPELR -28.23 (SC). That proof can be by any or circumstantial evidence either by: 1. Direct evidence of witnesses 2.By confession and admission of the accused cA.AS.40C.2022 5lPagc