4 Contrary to the denials of the accused person, there is overwhelming, uncontroverted, cogent and irresistible direct evidence confirming the fact that the accused beat the deceased on the 25/12/2009 with an iron rod. The law as settled in a long line of cases is that once a statement is admitted in evidence it forms part of the prosecution’s case and the Court is required to attach probative value to it (NWACHUKU V. THE STATE (2007) 31 NSCQR 312-359). When the matter was still fresh in his mind the accused stated in his cautionary statement of 26/12/2009 (exhibit “D”) of the incident thus “…I went to Nyima’s house with an iron rod. I wanted to kill Kajally… but he ran away… I hit him on the hand with the iron rod…” This piece of evidence is similar in material particulars with the evidence of PW1 and I am inclined to believe it as the truth in this matter. I consider the subsequent denials in court as an afterthought. From the foregoing I am satisfied that the accused assaulted the deceased with an iron rod and this I shall further hold as a fact. Issue (b) is the most important one in my view in the circumstances of this case. It deals with the cause of death of the deceased and relates to the medical evidence thereof. The general principle of law is that a Court can rely on a medical report emanating from a medical expert to prove cause of death in murder cases. However, a Court can in the absence of a medical report, properly infer the cause of death from the evidence and circumstances of the case. See ADAMU v. KANO NATIVE AUTHORITY (1956) SCNLR 65; RABIU v. THE STATE (1980) 8-11 SC 130; ERIC UYO v. ATTORNEY GENERAL BENDEL STATE (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.17) 418.