j '' , N1th rc,'.ards to this ]'"' in,'.rcd,cnt , that is \\ here the issue of nature ol cv1Jn ..:c arises . i\s already tmi1catcl!, it ts th.) l 111 tkrn b1 that th~ t) ms1.:cu1io11 did not tc1 dcr an c:, c ,v itncss account ot the enr ountcr between the Defendant and tile d-..' :..:~1::_-,. : d. PW I und er cross-c:\amination stated that the ,kccascd m(1ther told her or OIIC ~ .c \\' lllh.: ~s i11 tile µcrsull ur tile wik ~r one Hausa ma11 calk:d Da111iy,1. lncid( ntally , sh e did not testify and so the dctcncc had urged the court to rely 011 scct i,: 1 I (>7 ;J) 0 r the C, idc1h.: c :\ct 20 I I to ho!J thJt her i: ot being cdfkd impl i,:d that her evidence ,vould have been againsl the Prosecu tion . But could 1hi-; :1 )pl~, in th1:.' circum -; t~ncc'<) \Vith re~pe-:t I thil' ~ 110t . In the cuursc of proceedings, it was l·cvealcd that the said Hausa woman slay::-. i11 tile same µremiscs with tile Dde11J a11l. It was further tt!vealeJ that she shm\ .::cl umvill ingness to come to testify . Il i ~ i ! 1c1 c 1~>1-..: c: !car lliJl llicrc \\JS rc~1su11 fo r her nu. bci11g c;.il le d lo lcslil) . I subscribe to the contention by the Prosecut ion that the section will make inq.kc l if the Prnsecutiou withheld the evidem.:c. There is 110 evidence or wit h 10lding. The ~urdcn on the Prosecuti;n is to call maternal evidence and 110l u cJII J 1x 1rticular \\ il11css if tlic c:isc ca n ollien\ isc 'x pi·o, cJ . The Pro s 2cut ion referred the court to the case of TE\VOGBADE VS AKANDE I 981 N\VLR 40,i at 40S Per ESO JCA '" here th ,~court or Appeal slatc:J ''Uc.fore rite presumption under th e subsection rnn app~r, rile parry a;;aimt ll'hvm it is svughl tit at it should operate, 11111st have in fact withheld evidence. /Here.failure to produce the evidence woultl not 11ccc8sarily amount to witl,/wldi11;: such evidence" What is therefore material is to consider if there was circumstantial ev i icnce conclusively pointing: to only one reasonable conclt1sion - g:uilt of the De fendant. What is material is whether the acrs of the Defendant directly or in c ircctly caused th~ death of the deceased. PW 1 was one Chinelo Nzelu - daughter to the decc8sed and brother \l, The Jctaib of the cviJcncc arc aln.;aJy rcµroJuccd . Wli:.L ap,Jc,1rs borne out f~?m the evidence is that the deceased informed her of wha '. · tr: nspircd :rnd -;pec1f1c:illy referred to the Defe11dc1nt as the person who ~ausro 11 '" ,· tile krn n w ~,.. -- vcntually led to her de2th. There was clear ev1dcnc:; !li , D.:k i1J~111t. l.cRT!F/fD H~RUfcopi' .u.c. ~--/ - ~\~,tvt<wr 'Jl.~TE D ,ft,fy THA ' . A- ---~ ~7-:: /__J ~ R I