2. Whether the conviction and sentence of the Appellant for murder can be sustained by the credible or legally admissible evidence on this case? IN THE ALTERNATIVE: Whether the conviction of the Appellant based on Exhibits A and D, his confessional statements to the police was justified?" Respondent's brief of argument dated 22nd April, 2013 was filed on 23rd April, 2013 and deemed as properly filed on 24th April, 2013. Mrs. C. A. Ebosele, Chief State Counsel, Ministry of Justice, Edo State, who settled the respondent's brief of argument, nominated two issues for determination as follows: "(1) Whether the ingredients of the offence of murder as required by law was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt to justify his conviction. (2) Whether defence of intoxication raised at the trial avails the Accused/Appellant." I have considered the issues distilled for determination by both counsel herein. I have crystalised them into two, namely: 1. Whether the defence of intoxication was made out and available to the appellant. 2. Whether the conviction of the Appellant can be sustained on his confessional statements in Exhibits A and D. Issue 1: Appellant's learned counsel contended that the learned trial judge did not consider, evaluate and make a clear finding on the appellant's defence at the trial that he was involuntarily intoxicated by inhaling the smoke of Indian hemp. And that it was caused by a group of boys at a canteen in Urora village on 5/4/03. Furthermore, that he consequently became confused and did not know what happened to him, until he found himself at the police station on the next day. Appellant's learned counsel referred to the conclusion of the learned trial judge at page 169 of the record of appeal, inter alia: "It is my opinion and I so hold that the Accused person was not intoxicated on the question pursuant to Section 29(2) of the Criminal Code. I further hold that the accused person on 5/4/03 was self-induced." Learned counsel, nevertheless insisted that the learned trial judge did not properly evaluate the evidence before him and make findings therefrom, hence the conviction of the appellant must not be allowed to stand. He referred to Karibo v. Grend (1992) 3 NWLR (pt. 230) 426 at 643: Morenkeji v. Adegbosin (2003) 8 NWLR (pt. 823) 612 at 643: Kalio v. Woluchem (1985) 1 NWLR (pt. 4) 610 at 622; Obiaso & Ors. v. Okoye & Ors. (1989) 5 NWLR (pt. 119) 80; Section 29(1)(2)(3)(4) & (5) of the Criminal Code.