As per case facts, the appellants were convicted for murder under section 302 of the IPC, arising from an incident where the deceased was pulled from his bicycle, shot multiple ... times by the accused, and robbed due to unpaid ransom. The prosecution relied primarily on the informant's (PW-7) eyewitness account, while the other alleged eyewitness (PW-10) turned hostile. The appellants appealed the conviction, challenging the sufficiency of solitary witness testimony, citing discrepancies with medical evidence regarding the number of bullet injuries, and the absence of forensic examination of seized cartridges. The question arose whether the conviction could be sustained solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness, especially when a co-witness turned hostile and some inconsistencies existed between the ocular and medical evidence. Finally, the Court found PW-7's testimony credible and largely corroborated by the medical evidence, confirming multiple firearm injuries consistent with the informant's account. It upheld the conviction for Jagdish Yadav and Laxman Yadav, noting their direct involvement in the firing. However, Anil Singh was acquitted as PW-7 did not attribute any overt act to him, only his presence at the scene, which was deemed insufficient for conviction beyond reasonable doubt.