"I find as a fact that the Accused person deliberately attacked the deceased, beat her blue and black, defiled, stripped her of her dresses and then set her ablaze, which led to her state of unconsciousness and eventual death from multiple injuries." Therefore, I resolve this issue against the appellant. In sum, the appeal is devoid of merits. I dismiss it, accordingly. The well considered judgment of M.I. Edokpayi, J., on charge No. B/53C/2003 of 26th January, 2005 is hereby affirmed. I cannot intervene or interfere with appellant's date with the hangman. He deserves to face him for callously and savagely causing the death of the young girl - Favour Ihoeghilan. IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.C.A.: I concur with the reasoning and conclusion reached in the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, the Hon. Justice T.S. Yakubu, JCA to the conclusive effect that the present appeal is devoid of merits. Having adopted the said reasoning and conclusion as mine, I hereby dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, the Judgment of the High Court of Edo State, Benin Judicial Division delivered on 26/01/05 in Charge No. B/53C/2003 by M.I. Edokpaiyi, J; is hereby affirmed by me. AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.: I have read in draft the lead judgment prepared by my learned brother, TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, and I cannot but agree that the appeal be dismissed in the light of the painstaking consideration of the issues arising for determination in the appeal and the manner in which they have been resolved. However, I wish to add a few words regarding the contention of learned counsel for the Appellant that the unsworn evidence of PW1 was of no value because the lower court did not conduct any test to determine the competence of the said PW1 as a witness before he was allowed to give evidence. It is no doubt the settled position of the law that a child is a competent witness unless the court considers the child in question to be prevented from understanding the questions put to him by reason of tender years (i.e. his age). See Section 154 of the Evidence Act, Cap. 112 LFN, 1990. With specific reference to criminal proceedings the position of the law is that a child need not give sworn testimony if the child in the opinion of the court does not understand the nature of an oath but possesses sufficient