As per case facts, the appellant was convicted for murder, house-breaking, and Arms Act violations after the deceased's brother witnessed him firing a gunshot. The motive was a prior animosity ... related to an abduction case and threats. The conviction was also based on weapon recovery. The appellant appealed, challenging the delay in FIR, reliance on interested witnesses, inconsistencies, lack of evidence for threats, and hostile recovery witnesses, while also raising an alibi that was found to be fabricated. The question arose whether the conviction was sound, given the appellant's objections, especially regarding hostile recovery witnesses and his unsubstantiated alibi. Finally, the Court upheld the conviction, affirming that consistent ocular testimony, supported by scientific evidence and reliable recovery by the Investigating Officer, is sufficient even if panch witnesses turn hostile. The appellant's alibi was rejected as fabricated, and compromise deeds were considered invalid for such a serious, non-compoundable offense.