15 \) arises from the case presented by the prosecution, the court wi11 bound to resolve any such doubt in favour of the Defendant. b] dury see : udosen vs state (2007) AFWLR (pr.356) 669 2 699;Akeem vs, state QolT) LPELR (sc) 42-43; Esseyin vs state (201s) LPELR (SC) 10-11; Ekpo Vs State (2013) LPELR (SC) s_6. criminal code Law of Delta state defines stealing in 383 (1), (2), (3) and (a) to include arnong others, the fraudulent The Section taking of a thing capable of being stolen belonging to some other person or fraudulent conversion it is his own use. In Ayeni Vs State (2010 LPELR (sc) 25, the supreme court (per Kekere-Ekun), JSC stated: "A person who fraudulently takes anything capable of being stolen of fraudulently converts to his own use or to the use of any other person, anything capable of being stolen is said to steal that thing" See Oyebanji Vs Srate (2015) LPELR (SC) t6-17. As earlier pointed out the prosecutior'l case is erected on the evidence of PWl, who testified in full and the evidence of pw2, who abandoned the wifiress box without even concluding his evidence in chief. The law is that a court cannot act on the evidence of a wifiress who did not make himsetf available for cross examination after giving chief- This is because his evidence goes to naught and camies no weight. see rsiaka vs state (2orl) AFWLR @ 5E4 966; evidence in Al-Mustapha Ys state (2013) LPELR (cA) 102-103. b