Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

• The conviction for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was upheld despite the fact that the sole eyewitness, PW 3, was not named in the FIR, and other eyewitnesses turned hostile (!) (!) .

• The evidence of PW 3 was deemed credible and reliable after thorough credibility assessment, and his testimony was sufficient to sustain the conviction (!) (!) .

• The incident involved the appellant giving a knife blow that resulted in the immediate death of the deceased, witnessed by multiple witnesses, with PW 3 providing the crucial testimony (!) .

• The appellant’s argument that reliance on PW 3’s testimony was unjustified due to his not being named in the FIR and doubts about his presence at the scene was rejected, as the court found his evidence to be unscathed upon credibility assessment (!) (!) .

• The court emphasized that the absence of a witness’s name in the FIR does not necessarily make their testimony inadmissible or unreliable, especially if their evidence withstands credibility testing (!) .

• The appellate court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence, and highlighted that the testimony of a reliable eye-witness can be sufficient for conviction even if others are hostile or absent from the FIR (!) (!) .

Please let