As per case facts, the six appellants along with three other accused persons were convicted for murder, stemming from an incident where the deceased, part of a rival village group, ... was attacked while cycling. The accused allegedly hacked the deceased on his wrist, speared his back, and after he fell, dragged him to a wall where further fatal injuries were inflicted. A First Information Report was lodged, and the trial court convicted them, a decision upheld by the High Court for the appellants, though three co-accused were acquitted. The question arose whether the High Court was justified in upholding the appellants' convictions despite acquitting three co-accused due to inconsistencies with medical evidence, and given arguments about a delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, the partisan nature of eyewitnesses, the absence of dragging marks, and the lack of blood on recovered weapons. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning was sound, stating that doubting eyewitness testimony for some accused due to lack of medical corroboration does not invalidate their testimony for others if it is otherwise credible. The court found that non-examination of independent witnesses was not fatal, and deemed the explanations for the absence of dragging marks and blood on weapons reasonable. It concluded that the delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate does not automatically vitiate a trustworthy prosecution case, especially considering the increased workload for the police. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the convictions and sentences.