https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381031 Where identification of the accused was doubtful because the incident occurred in darkness without reliable evidence of moonlight or other sufficient light, and the eyewitness accounts were materially inconsistent on who fired the shots, the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's role beyond reasonable doubt. The recovery evidence was also weakened by hostile witnesses, and the medical evidence did not conclusively link the fatal injuries to a particular weapon. In these circumstances, the conviction for murder, attempt to murder and the Arms Act offence could not be sustained, and the appellant was given the benefit of doubt. en-us Tue, 07 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Jun 2019 20:12:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381031 Where identification of the accused was doubtful because the incident occurred in darkness without reliable evidence of moonlight or other sufficient light, and the eyewitness accounts were materially inconsistent on who fired the shots, the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's role beyond reasonable doubt. The recovery evidence was also weakened by hostile witnesses, and the medical evidence did not conclusively link the fatal injuries to a particular weapon. In these circumstances, the conviction for murder, attempt to murder and the Arms Act offence could not be sustained, and the appellant was given the benefit of doubt. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381031