As per case facts, during a period of insurgency, two young men were forcibly abducted from their home by armed assailants, including the appellant. Their bodies were later found shot ... with AK-47 rifles. The appellant, Sucha Singh, was convicted for murder. He appealed, questioning the reliability of the witnesses who identified him and challenging the application of a legal presumption that abductors are also the killers, arguing it contradicts criminal jurisprudence. The question arose whether the principle, allowing the court to presume abductors are killers unless they explain what happened, could be applied, particularly when aiding conviction under Section 34 IPC. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the rule of burden of proof is not rigid. It reiterated that when abductors fail to explain what happened to the deceased, there is justification to infer they are the murderers. The Court stressed that allowing abductors of a murdered victim to escape conviction without explanation would provide safe jurisprudence for criminal activities.