The court held that the prosecution didn’t dispute the ingredients but the participation of the accused. The medical evidence proved the death of the deceased; the death was unlawful unless proved otherwise which was not done, the nature of the killing proved malice aforethought.

That the evidence led by the prosecution was highly circumstantial and didn’t rule out a possibility of others having committed the offence. That the identification of the accused was not proved to have been sufficient and there was no hypothesis that exclusively to the guilt of the accused. The prosecution did not prove its case satisfactorily.