and, secondly, it dismissed their appeal and reinstated the sentence of life imprisonment meted out by the trial court. A. Allegation that the burden of proof was shifted and the conviction was based on improper evidence 59. The Applicants allege that the Court of Appeal erred by requiring them to raise reasonable doubt to the prosecution evidence by proving that they were not at the crime scene, while the burden of proof as per law lies on the prosecution and not the defence. 60. The Applicants also submit that the Court of Appeal based their conviction on improper visual identification thus leaving doubts, which, if they had been resolved, could have inured to their benefit. According to the Applicants, the Court of Appeal should not have considered the identification made through the headlights of the passing motor vehicle without any evidence of its speed. The Applicants also aver that the Court of Appeal did not consider the contradictory witnesses’ statements regarding the source of light, i.e., whether it was the headlights of the passing motor vehicle or moonlight. * 61. The Respondent State refutes these allegations and contends that the prosecution proved the case against the Applicants beyond reasonable doubt. 62. The Respondent State submits that the Court of Appeal acknowledged the issue of contradiction raised by the Applicants and thus disregarded all evidence related to that issue. 63. The Respondent State further avers that allegations regarding improper identification lack merit because the Court of Appeal thoroughly assessed the evidence tendered in court regarding the identification of the Applicants 16