Court it is clear that the death of the person in question Abubakar Muhammad was cause by the defendant; that this fact was also established through the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3, and Exhibits A and A1 which are the statements of the defendant in Hausa and English Language respectively. That the first ingredient of the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt and urge the Court to so hold. References was made to Section 126(a) and (b) of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended) and the case of FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA V. SARAKI (2017) LPELR 43392 CA. which is to the effect that the evidence of an investigating police officer (I.P.O.) with regard to what he did or saw is not hearsay and is admissible. The Defence Counsel submits on the first ingredient that the prosecution led no single evidence of the identity of the deceased alleged to have been killed. That the prosecution failed to give a pictorial evidence of the fact that Abubakar Muhammad died. The second ingredient is that such death was cause by the defendant. On this, the prosecution submitted that the death of the deceased was caused by the defendant and that the prosecution can rely on the following forms of evidence to proof that: 1. Confessional statement; 2. Circumstantial evidence; or 3. Evidence of eye witness. 23