Witness testimony that contradicts medical evidence loses credibility, and witnesses found to have falsely testified with regard to a co-accused cannot be relied upon against the accused unless the testimony is sufficiently corroborated through strong evidence from an unimpeachable source.
Once an improvement made by a witness in their statements is found to be deliberate and dishonest, serious doubt is cast on the veracity of such a witness. Such witness statements may not be used to uphold a conviction.
An unexplained delay that indicated deliberations before registering the FIR, a planted witness, and scientifically-dubious medical evidence, cannot support a conviction.
An unexplained delay of 11 hours between the murder and post-mortem may indicate that police and complainant spent the time procuring and planting eyewitnesses, especially if the witness has been proven to be unreliable.
Witness testimony will be viewed suspiciously if it is not logical, and is inconsistent with other evidence produced. Circumstantial evidence can only be used to uphold a conviction, where the only reasonable explanation is that of the accused’s guilt.