consignees of the -goods in the containers. The owner of Efcrism Group Mr. Kayode Fashagba was arrested by NDLEA officials and taken to their office where he made a statement. PW9 confirmed under cross-examination that Kayode Fashagba said he was aware of the containers and was communicating with the shippers. Yet he was not charged along with the Appellant and Ugwu and was not even called as a witness to testify as to his link with the consignment. His evidence would have thrown more light on the involvement of the appellant in the importation of the cocaine. The prosecution could have done more on the claim by the appellant that the bills of lading were given to him by Chief Oke. NDLEA officials had seized the phones of the appellant and could have obtained from his service providers all his call records to check for conversations relating to the importation of cocaine from Bolivia and in particular checked out the call records of Chief Oke's boy whose number was made available to NDLEA. Under cross-examination, PW9 said they must have tried in their office to trace the owner of the number 081-33084663 (Chief Oke's boy) but no evidence on the point was led by the prosecution. If there was nothing of relevance from the call records, that would have assisted in establishing the fact that Chief Oke did not exist. Rather the prosecution it appears shifted to the appellant the burden of producing Chief Oke forgetting that the burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt imposes on the prosecution the burden of eliminating any doubt that could arise from the evidence presented. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the charge against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt, it must be resolved in favour of the accused as the presumption is that accused is Innocent until proven guilty. See Williams v The State (1992) NWLR (PT. 261) 515; Ogundiyan v. State (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 181) 519; Chukwuma v. F. R. N. (2011) LPELR-SC. 253/2007. The prosecution has in my view failed to put forward before the court evidence which is so strong, compelling and convincing against the appellant such that it leaves no reasonable man in doubt as to the probability that the appellant indeed imported cocaine into Nigeria in the container AASCU 1287231. The doubt is there that he may not have been a party to the importation of the cocaine and was just assisting Chief Oke clear the container. The judgment of the trial court is at pages 310 to 350 of the printed record. It is noteworthy that summary of the proceedings and addresses of counsel spanned from pages 310 to 348 of the judgment. The views and actual judgment of the court started from the middle of page 348 to 350. The primary duty of a trial court is to evaluate evidence led at the trial, to make appropriate findings and to come to a reasonable conclusion based on its evaluation of the evidence. The learned trial judge did not evaluate adequately the evidence led neither did his lordship give due consideration to the issues raised in the addresses of counsel. The only comment the learned trial judge made about the appellant's claim that Chief Oke gave him the bills of lading to clear the ceramic tiles for him is this: