Natural witness testimony and dying declaration sustained murder conviction despite minor discrepancies and weak motive.

Natural witness testimony, a prompt dying declaration to the doctor, and medical corroboration were treated as reliable evidence supporting a murder conviction based on common intention. Minor discrepancies in the witnesses' accounts and criticism of the first information report were held insufficient to displace the prosecution case because they did not go to the root of the matter. The absence of a strong motive did not undermine the conviction where the remaining evidence was convincing. The reasons advanced for acquittal were found trivial and unsustainable, and the conviction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for murder with common intention, based on the ocular testimony of natural witnesses, the dying declaration, and medical corroboration, was liable to be set aside for alleged discrepancies, doubtful motive, and criticism of the first information report.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the occurrence took place near the residences of the witnesses, making their presence natural and probable. The deceased named his assailant to the doctor soon after the incident, and that statement furnished strong corroborative evidence. The medical evidence supported the prosecution version, and the alleged inconsistencies in the evidence were held to be minor and not going to the root of the matter. The absence of a strong motive did not weaken the prosecution case, since motive is not indispensable where the other evidence is convincing. The reasons relied on for acquittal were found to be trivial and unsustainable.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld and the challenge to the reversal of acquittal failed.

---