Key Points: - The appellant's conviction under Section 302/34 IPC was set aside, and conviction/sentence under 324 IPC was considered, with discussion on whether dying declarations and eye-witness testimony could sustain a 302/34 conviction (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The trial court's findings about place of stabbing and credibility of eye-witnesses were reviewed, noting that site plans did not show kitchen or blood evidence, affecting the determination of where stabbing occurred and who could witness it (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment emphasizes that where an acquittal is reviewed, the appellate court should not overturn it unless the record shows the trial court’s view is not reasonably sustainable, and it permits altering convictions only if the view favorable to conviction is at least as acceptable; it ultimately allows the State’s appeal against acquittal to convict under 302/34 only if warranted by evidence (!) (!) . - The High Court’s concurrent findings that all eye-witnesses did not witness at the time/place alleged and the omission of certain facts in the F.I.R. are considered significant in evaluating veracity and dying declarations (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court ultimately allows the appeal, setting aside the 302/34 conviction and directing release if already served, and clarifies procedural posture regarding SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 certificates (!) (!) (!) . - Key factual dispute centers on whether Harbinder Singh was stabbed near the kitchen in the room or in the lane, and who could plausibly be witnesses to the stabbing (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?