91. The Applicant further avers that the Respondent State’s courts failed to draw logical inferences from the prosecution’s omission of relevant evidence and failed to supplement the record with tangible evidence of a murder weapon or DNA evidence. He submits that the evidence relied on to convict him clearly did not meet “beyond reasonable doubt”’ standard required under the Respondent State’s criminal law. * 92. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant’s allegations are disputed; that they have no merit and the Applicant is put to strict proof. The Respondent State submits that during the testimony of PW1, it was clear that the witness was at the crime scene as she testified that she shouted for help when she found the Applicant and his brother beating their mother and later trying to burn her alive with banana leaves to conceal the evidence. 93. The Respondent State avers that the trial court warned itself on the dangers of convicting on the testimony of a single witness and was satisfied that the witness was telling the truth. It is the Respondent State’s contention that despite the rule that corroboration should always be required in all cases involving dying declarations, conviction on the evidence of a single witness cannot be ruled out if the court is fully satisfied that the witness is telling the truth. The Respondent State avers that with that type of testimony, there was extensive evidence for the trial court to consider while making a determination on the issue of visual identification. 94. With respect to the dying declaration, the Respondent State submits that the deceased also told her husband that the Applicant had assaulted her and that the trial court held that the deceased person mentioned her assailants as the Applicant and his brother. The Respondent State argues that the evidence was clear and, upon due assessment, the High Court found it to be sufficient to warrant a conviction. The Respondent State submits that the Court of Appeal also considered the evidence on record 26