14 .-.\ . The investigating authorities do not have authority to obtain statements from him, having told him he is not obliged to say anything. vs salawu (20r r) LPELR (sc) zs-26. It is my tirm view that "TWT3"-"Twr6,, having been obtained by See state the PW2 from the Defendant instead of being voluntarily made by or out of the free will of the Defendant, they fail the litmus test of admissibility in Section2g of the Evidence Act, 2011. In the result, I sustain the objection of defencs counsel in respect of "TWr3" of I l-3-2014, 2014 and "TWT6" of "Twr4" of L2-5-2014, "Twr5', of 20-11- 27'll-2014. They are all therefore rejected and ordered to be marked as rejected. As for "TwTl", having found that it was voluntarily made, Defendant's objection is accordingly ovemrled and the statement of the Defendant made on I 5-2-2014; "TWTI" is hereby aclmi6ed in evidence and marked as Exhibit "C". Now to the judgment proper. The law is well settle,J and elementary that whenever a Defendant is charged with the commission of any criminal offence he/she is presumed to be innocen! until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable. See section 36 (5) CFRN (1g99) as amended. The prosecution bears the burden of proof of the alleged offenoe, whioh burdon does not shlft a,nd tlre Defondant does not boar any corresponding duty to prove his innocence. If on the totality of the evidence before the court, it is left in a state of doubt or some doubt ',