State (2007) 1 SCNJ 207; Yakubu v. UBA, Plc (2012) 25 WRN 113 at 153." Per YAKUBU,J.C.A. (Pp.2425,paras.E-A) (...read in context) 10. EVIDENCE - PRESUMPTION: The test to be applied where there is a legal presumption that accused person intended the natural and probable consequences of his action "..So, the legal presumption is loudly to the effect that the appellant intended the natural and probable consequence of his actions on 5/4/2003. The test to be applied in such circumstances, is the objective one, to wit: the test of what a reasonable man would contemplate as the reasonable result of his actions. Arabamen v. The State (1992) 4 SC 35; Eric Uyo v. The Attorney-Gen. Bendel State (1986) 1 All NLR 106 at 112; Garba v. The State (2000) FWLR (pt. 24) 1448 at 1460. In Adegboyega Ibikunle v. The State (2007) 1 SCNJ 207; my Lord, Onu, JSC., succinctly stated: "If from the intentional act of injury committed, the probability of death resulting is high, the finding should be that the accused intended to cause death or injury sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death." Per YAKUBU,J.C.A. (Pp.34-35,paras.D-A) (...read in context) 11. EVIDENCE - PROOF OF INSANITY: Different ways of establishing insanity by the courts "...And the surest way of establishing insanity is by medical evidence or by compelling evidence of eyewitnesses, particularly of the relatives of the appellant, relating to his general conduct and behavior prior to, during and after the incident in question. Anthony Ejinma v. The State (1991) 7 SCNJ (pt. 1) 318 at 328. In M.A. Sanusi v. The State (1984) 10 SC 166 at 177 - 178, his Lordship, Anagiolu, JSC., emphatically stated what is expected in pieces of evidence aimed at establishing and proving insanity, as: "Positive act of the accused, before and after the deed complained of; evidence by a doctor who examined and watched the accused over a period of time as to his mental state; evidence of relatives who know the accused person intimately relating to his behavior and the change which had come upon him; the medical history of the family which could indicate hereditary mental affliction or abnormality, and such other facts and circumstances which will help the trial judge come to the conclusion that the burden of insanity placed on the accused, has been simply discharged." The salient facts required in proving insanity were clearly projected and crystalised by the apex court again, in Onyejekwe v. The State (1988) 1 NWLR (pt.72) 565 at 579 - per my Lord, Oputa, JSC., to include: "(1) Evidence as to the past history of the accused; (2) Evidence as to his conduct immediately preceding the killing of the