Key Points: - The trial court acquitted three accused by giving them the benefit of doubt, not by finding the prosecution's eye-witness evidence to be totally false and unreliable. Therefore, the same evidence could still be used to convict the appellant. (!) - In a criminal case, the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt always rests on the prosecution. However, once the prosecution has discharged this burden with its own evidence, the court can use defence evidence to lend assurance to its conclusions. (!) - The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Sukhdev Singh. As Sukhwinder Singh, who fired the fatal shot, was acquitted, Section 34 IPC did not apply. The appellant's act (causing injuries No. 2 and 3) did not, by itself, cause death, so he could not be convicted under Section 302 IPC but was liable under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder. (!)

How to assess the reliability of prosecution witnesses when some co-accused are acquitted based on the same evidence?

What is the permissible use of defence evidence in a criminal trial when the prosecution has already discharged its burden of proof?

What is the nature of the offence under Section 302 or 307 IPC when the accused's act did not independently cause death, and Section 34 IPC is inapplicable?