https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311761 Credible eyewitness testimony, supported by recovery and motive evidence, was sufficient to sustain one appellant's conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence; the delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained, and the witnesses were not to be disbelieved merely because they fled in fear. As to the remaining appellants, omnibus and vague allegations without specific, reliable evidence were insufficient, and common object was not proved. Suspicion, however strong, could not replace proof, so their convictions were set aside on benefit of doubt. en-us Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:42:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311761 Credible eyewitness testimony, supported by recovery and motive evidence, was sufficient to sustain one appellant's conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence; the delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained, and the witnesses were not to be disbelieved merely because they fled in fear. As to the remaining appellants, omnibus and vague allegations without specific, reliable evidence were insufficient, and common object was not proved. Suspicion, however strong, could not replace proof, so their convictions were set aside on benefit of doubt. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 09 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311761