Is the evidence of an eyewitness rendered untrustworthy merely because motive is not established?

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — s.109 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.106 — Acid attack — Facts within special knowledge — Test identification parade — Motive — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.106 — Special knowledge — Unexplained injuries of the accused — Held: Where the accused sustained acid injuries on the day of the occurrence and offer no explanation, those facts being exclusively within their knowledge, the absence of explanation points to their complicity in the crime. (¶15, 18) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.106 — Cross-examination — Incriminating suggestion is substantive evidence — Held further: A suggestion put to a witness in cross-examination whose answer incriminates the accused is a substantive piece of evidence and may be taken into consideration along with the other evidence on record. (¶14) Criminal trial — Test identification parade — Identity established by eyewitnesses — Held further: The non conduct of a test identification parade is not fatal to the prosecution where the identity of the accused is otherwise established; such a parade is not obligatory and is not substantive evidence. (¶20, 21) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — Motive — Eyewitness evidence unaffected — Held further: The evidence of an eyewitness is not rendered untrustworthy merely because motive is not established, where the other circumstances clinchingly prove complicity. Criminal appeals dismissed and the conviction confirmed. (¶22, 23)