As per case facts, the appellant was convicted for trespassing, robbery, and causing injury to the victim (PW2) by snatching her Thali chain after an incident at her home. Aggrieved ... by this, the appellant appealed, arguing a false case and highlighting issues such as improper dock identification by PW2 after three years, contradictions in the recovery of stolen items, absence of forensic reports for blood samples, and inconsistencies in the investigation documents. The question arose whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt given these significant infirmities. Finally, the High Court found multiple contradictions and procedural lapses, including the unreliable dock identification without a prior test identification parade and conflicting accounts of evidence recovery. Citing Supreme Court jurisprudence on evidence credibility, the High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, leading to the appellant's acquittal.