As per case facts, the appellant, a police constable, was convicted for the murder of a 25-year-old man. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot the deceased multiple times in ... his house around 2:00 PM when the deceased, accompanied by his uncle and another individual, entered the house and was seen talking to the appellant's wife. The appellant's defence counter-version claimed that earlier that morning, while he was away, the deceased intruded and tried to assault his wife, who resisted and caused the fatal injuries with the appellant's service revolver. She later went to the police station but her statement was refused. The appellant argued that the prosecution fabricated the case and its timeline. The question arose whether the appellant's murder conviction could be sustained given the significant discrepancies between the prosecution's and defence's accounts, particularly regarding the timing of death, the reliability of alleged eyewitnesses, and the medical evidence. Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, noting that the time of death was heavily disputed. Medical evidence from the post-mortem, particularly the stomach contents, indicated death occurred much earlier than the prosecution's alleged 2:00 PM, suggesting morning hours. The deceased's casual attire was deemed inconsistent with plans for a long journey. The Court also expressed serious doubts about the presence and credibility of the two supposed eyewitnesses, concluding they were likely not present at the scene. Based on the totality of circumstances, the Court found sufficient doubt to acquit the appellant.