hand and exhibit B on the other hand as to whether the Appellant voluntarily confessed to the crime. He referred to the case of IKEMSON V. THE STATE (1989) 3 N.W.L.R Part 110 page 455 at 467 para H. He further submitted that proper foundation was not laid before admitting exhibit B. It (i.e. exhibit B) was a secondary evidence, the original thereof having been lost with the case file. He urged the court to expunge exhibit B from the record and no reliance whatsoever should be placed on it. He submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have evaluated all the evidence adduced by both sides before believing exhibit B assuming it was admissible. He referred to the cases of AWOPEJO VS. THE STATE (2002) 6 W.R.N 1 S.C pages 11-12 and OZIGBE V. AIGBE (1977) 7 S.C at page 1. He urged the court to resolve the doubt in P.W2's testimony in favour of the Appellant. He canvassed further that there was no eye witness account of the Appellant shooting the deceased. The nearest the prosecution came to an eye witness evidence was the evidence of P.W3 who testified that the deceased and the Appellant were quarrelling and he later heard the deceased shouted for help. He submitted that in the absence of an eye witness, the prosecution should at least tender both the gun used by the Appellant to shoot the deceased and the forensic laboratory report to show that the gun was fired, that the pellets retrieved from the body of the deceased matched those fired by the gun and that the finger prints of the Appellant were on the gun. From plethora of judicial authorities, it is now well settled that to secure a conviction on a charge of murder, the prosecution must prove (1) That the deceased had died (2) That the death of the deceased had resulted from the act of the Appellant and (3) That the act or omission of the accused which caused the death of the deceased was intentional with the full knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm was its probable consequences.See the cases of ONAH V. THE STATE (1985) 2 N.S.C.C 361 at 1369 per Oputa J.S.C., NWAEZE V. THE STATE (1996) 2 N.W.L.R part 428 at page 1, YAKI V. THE STATE(2008) All F.W.L.R page 618 at 632 paras B-D. These three ingredients must co-exist and where one of them is absent or tainted with some doubt, the charge cannot be said to have been proved. See OBUDU V. THE STATE (19991) 6 N.W.LR part 198 at 433 and OGBA V. THE STATE (1992) 2 N.W.L.R part 222 at 164. In the instant case, it admits of no argument that Fausat the wife of the Appellant died of gunshot. The evidence of the doctor who performed the post mortem examination (PW. 1) and Exhibit A are explicit on this fact. PW2 testified that he was on his farm when his son came to call him and when he got home, Fausat held on to him and told him that the Appellant had shot her. PW3 who happened to be the junior brother of the Appellant and a minor who gave evidence on oath after the court was satisfied