As per the case facts, the appeal challenged a High Court judgment that upheld a conviction for offenses under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC, based on circumstantial evidence ... including extra-judicial confession and a "last seen" theory. The prosecution did not examine a Ballistic Expert. The question arose whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially given reliance on circumstantial evidence, the credibility of witnesses regarding extra-judicial confession and last seen theory, and the lack of a Ballistic Expert's testimony. Finally, the Supreme Court found significant doubts regarding witness credibility and the extra-judicial confession, deeming the absence of a Ballistic Expert's examination a critical flaw. Consequently, the court concluded the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, granting the accused the benefit of doubt and setting aside the convictions.