prosecution. Relying on EMEKA V. STATE (2001) FWLR (PT. 66) P. 682, Counsel submitted that in criminal trial, the guilt of an accused person can be established by (a) confessional statement, (b) circumstantial evidence, (c) evidence of eye witness. He submitted that the prosecution in this case has not succeeded in pinning the 4th and 5th Defendants in any of the aforementioned ways. He further contended that the evidence of Mr. Ebikabowei Victor Ben and Mrs. Sonia Victor are very vital to the case of the prosecution and the inability to call either of them is fatal to the prosecution’s case. He relied on JOSHUA V. STATE (2009) ALL FWLR PT. 475 P. 1626. He urged this Court to discharge and acquit the 4th and 5th Defendants on the 2-count charge against them, the prosecution having failed to establish their case beyond reasonable doubt. On the sole issue formulated by the learned prosecuting Counsel, she submitted that from the totality of the evidence adduced at trial, the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence as contained in the charge against the Defendants beyond reasonable doubt. She relied on the provisions of Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011. She submitted that where all the essential ingredients of the offences charged have been proved or established by the Prosecution the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt. She relied on the case of NWATURUOCHA V. STATE (2011) 6 NWLR PT. 1242 P. 170. On Count 1 of the amended charge which is on the offence of conspiracy, the learned prosecution contended that this offence is one which can be predicated on circumstantial evidence i.e. based on inference. She submitted that the offence of conspiracy is committed where there is an agreement by two or more persons to do or cause to do an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. Counsel listed the ingredients which the prosecution must prove to establish the offence of conspiracy and submitted that there is abundant evidence before this Court to infer conspiracy between the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants. She referred this Court to the statements of the Defendants admitted in evidence and contended that there was an agreement between the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants to commit an illegal act to wit; defraud the nominal complainant. 9