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.
The prosecution/police’s suspicion does not replace the need for reliable evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Evidence that relies on vague, general allegations with material contradictions and that appears to be aimed at exculpating the police of wrongdoing is insufficient to support a conviction.