Unreliable eyewitness and approver evidence cannot sustain a murder conviction where inconsistencies and doubtful identification undermine the prosecution case.

A murder conviction based on a sole eyewitness and an approver was found unsafe where the approver's version materially conflicted with the eyewitness account and appeared to be used to fill gaps in the prosecution case. The eyewitness evidence was also rejected because he did not promptly name the assailants, gave inconsistent statements, and claimed identification in very poor lighting. Delay in lodging the FIR and the possibility of false implication from factional enmity further weakened the prosecution. On that evidence, the conviction could not be sustained and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for murder could be sustained on the basis of the evidence of a sole eyewitness and an approver whose testimony suffered from material inconsistencies and infirmities.

Analysis: The approver's evidence was found unreliable because it materially conflicted with the eyewitness account and was given after a large number of prosecution witnesses had already been examined, creating the risk that pardon had been tendered to fill gaps in the prosecution case. The sole eyewitness was also found unsafe to rely upon because he did not promptly disclose the assailants' names, made statements inconsistent with his later version, and claimed identification in circumstances of very poor lighting. The surrounding circumstances, including delay in the first information report and the possibility of false implication due to factional enmity, further weakened the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained on the evidence adduced, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

---