Proof

"Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt, or all shadow of doubt. It simply means establishing the guilt of the accused person with compelling and conclusive evidence. A degree of compulsion which is consistent with a high degree of probability."

Nnamdi Osuagwu v. State: Lor(25/1/2013)

It is equally well settled that the guilt of an accused person may be established in one of three ways, that is to say:
1. By direct evidence of witnesses;
2. By circumstantial evidence; and
3. By reliance on the voluntary confessional statement of the accused.
See:Bello Okashetu Vs The State (2016) LPELR-40611 (SC); Stephen Vs The State (2013) Vol.223 LRCN (Pt.2) 215; Oguonzee V. The State (1998) 58 LRCN 3512 @ 2551; Akwuobi V. The State 92016) LPELR-41389 (SC).

Where the prosecution's case is infested with contradictions, clearly the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Appellant ought to have been discharged and acquitted. This the trial Court did not do. The lower Court, that is the Court of Appeal dwelt only on the aspect of the arraignment of the Appellant and did not consider the case as a whole when it made an order of retrial. This I think is wrong.
To subject the Appellant to another trial on the pieces of evidence that are so contradictory and may at the end lead to his acquittal, will serve no useful purpose. To make an order for retrial, the appellate Court must advert its mind to the evidence on which the accused was found guilty. Where the totality of the evidence leads or creates reasonable doubt, an order of retrial is inappropriate. It will clearly be oppressive to subject an accused to another trial.
It is in the public interest that there should be an end to every litigation. Where from the available evidence at the trial, the appellate Court can do justice between the parties by bringing the litigation to an end, an order for retrial is inappropriate.