As per case facts, the appellants filed criminal appeals against their conviction for murder. The trial judge allegedly relied on politically interested witnesses, failed to consider the absence of seized ... firearms or empty cartridges, and the initial inquest report did not name the actual assailants. There were contradictions in the prosecution's case regarding who shot the deceased, and no eyewitness implicated Mobaidul Hossain. A blood-stained nomination paper was seized much later, and no bombs were recovered. The question arose whether the conviction of the appellants, based on interested witnesses and lacking crucial corroborative evidence like weapon recovery and consistent witness statements, could be sustained, especially after the principal accused in a related case (Baladeb Paul) was acquitted due to significant prosecutorial loopholes. Finally, the Court found numerous loopholes in the prosecution's case, including reliance on interested witnesses, lack of weapon recovery, withheld inquest report contents, and inconsistencies in witness depositions. Given these deficiencies and the acquittal of the principal accused in a connected case, the conviction of the appellants was set aside, and they were acquitted.