As per case facts, the appellant allegedly hacked the victim with a sharp weapon, causing head injuries. The victim was treated in hospitals but died days after discharge. An FIR ... was lodged late, after the victim's death. Key issues included the significant delay in filing the FIR, absence of original medical treatment documents, unproven post-mortem report (carbon copy), non-examination of treating doctors, and non-recovery of the weapon. The Trial Court convicted the appellant based on eyewitness testimony and her absconding. The question arose whether the conviction could be sustained given these deficiencies, particularly if the delayed FIR, lack of medical evidence, and unproven post-mortem report raised reasonable doubt, and if absconding alone amounted to admission of guilt. Finally, the Supreme Court found multiple deficiencies in the prosecution's case, including unexplained FIR delay, non-recovery of weapon, and lack of proof for the injury's seriousness or direct link to death after discharge. The post-mortem report was inadmissible, and the appellant was not properly questioned about absconding, causing prejudice. Granting the benefit of doubt, the appellant was acquitted, and the conviction was set aside due to an incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence.