Penal Code, 1860–Secs. 302, 307 & 201–Conviction–Sustainability–Case of prosecution rests mainly on the ocular testimony of PW 10–His testimony is full with contradictions–He stated in his examination in chief that the appellant was holding hammer in his hand and he was going away–Same did not find in his statements u/s. 164–If he was conscious and oriented at the time of admission in the hospital, why his statement was not recorded immediately thereafter–No other neighbour was examined to corroborate the version of PW 12–If the testimony of PW 12 is discarded, the case would become the one of circumstantial evidence–High Court has disbelieved the circumstances of recovery of hammer, blood stained clothes and CCTV footage–Hammer was recovered from an open place accessible to one and all–It is the appellant who informed the police about the crime and he was present there, therefore, the presence of blood-stains on his clothes cannot be said to be unnatural–Appellant is entitled to be acquitted.
