Solitary eye-witness testimony found unsafe for murder conviction where inconsistencies, intoxication, and weak motive undermined proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Conviction for murder was held unsafe where the prosecution relied principally on a solitary eye-witness whose account was weakened by close relationship to the parties, admitted intoxication, absence of any stated source of light, and an unnatural silence during the alleged assault. The supporting witnesses gave only derivative accounts of what he later said, while the alleged motive was not satisfactorily proved. The medical evidence could not overcome the serious improbabilities in the ocular version, and the court applied the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt to hold that the evidence did not justify conviction. The conviction was set aside and the accused acquitted on benefit of doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for murder could be sustained on the basis of the testimony of a solitary eye-witness and the surrounding circumstances.

Analysis: The sole eye-witness was closely related to both the deceased and the accused, was admittedly intoxicated, and claimed to have witnessed the occurrence from a distance without any indicated source of light. His silence during the alleged prolonged assault, despite the presence of nearby residents, was found unnatural and improbable. The supporting witnesses only repeated what he allegedly told them later and did not provide substantive independent evidence. The motive based on an alleged illicit relationship was not satisfactorily proved, and the medical evidence alone could not cure the serious improbabilities in the ocular version. Applying the standard that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence was found unsafe for sustaining the conviction.

Conclusion: The conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted, with the benefit of doubt.

---