Penal Code, 1860–Secs. 302/34 [Corresponding Sec. 103/3(5) of BNS, 2023]–Reliability of direct evidence–PW 1 & PW 2 are the son and wife of the deceased–It is highly unlikely that a boy of 17 years of age would be able to cover the distance of 19 kilometers on cycle within thirty minutes, that too with his middle aged mother as a pillion rider–It seems exceedingly impropable and raises huge doubts about the presence of PW 1 & 2–Further, it is also highly questionable as to why after the incident, the two eye-witnesses travelled back the entire distance of 16 kilometers to their house first and went to the police station only subsequently thereafter despite there being a police station en-route from the liquor shop to their home–Presence of PW 1 & 2 at the place of crime in itself is highly contentious–No other alleged eye-witness has supported the case of prosecution–26 injuries were identified in the post mortem report which are unlikely to be caused by a single assailant–Deceased was a habitually drunkered and a convicted criminal–Appellants are entitled to be acquitted.
