As per case facts... The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court and the High Court for offences including murder and attempt to murder arising from a property dispute. The ... conviction relied on the testimony of injured eyewitnesses who were relatives of the deceased. The appellants contended that there were delays in lodging the FIR, a separate trial for a counter-case caused prejudice, and, crucially, that the eyewitnesses failed to identify the accused in court and gave inconsistent accounts with material omissions in their police statements. The question arose whether the conviction, resting primarily on the evidence of related, injured eyewitnesses, could be sustained when those witnesses failed to identify the accused in the courtroom and their testimonies contained significant omissions amounting to contradictions. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the failure of eyewitnesses to identify the accused in court, and to specifically ascribe roles, was fatal to the prosecution's case, especially where the evidence contained material omissions constituting contradictions. The principle that an eyewitness must identify the accused in court, even if previously known, is essential to link the person in the dock to the crime. The guilt of the accused was held not to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and the appellants were acquitted.