The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the deceased as named in the charge and post mortem report, as the evidence of PW3 did not match the names provided in the information. Additionally, the court held that the conditions under which the identification of the accused was made were not sufficiently clear or reliable, given the lack of detail regarding PW3's position and the lighting at the scene. The court concluded that the evidence of identification was not free from the possibility of error or mistake. Consequently, the prosecution did not establish a prima facie case against the accused to warrant placing him on his defence, and the accused was acquitted under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code.