$\newcommand{m}{\text{Mr. } M}$If $\m$ is guilty, then if we pick a witness, we know that the witness won't lie unless he is afraid. If the witness is afraid, it may lie or it may lot lie (nothing is guaranteed).
However, unless we know what the victim said in the court (whether he said that $\m$ was guilty or not guilty), we can't say anything about $\m$.
All we know is that we've a witness who is afraid, so he may or may not lie in the court. We haven't been told anything about what actually happened in the court proceeding.
So, we can't logically conclude anything about $\m$ being guilty or not guilty.
Thus, options (a) and (b) are False.
Furthermore, that witness who was afraid, he may or may not lie. Since he is afraid, we know that he "can" lie, but we're not guaranteed that he will lie.
Thus, options (d) and (e) are False too.
This leaves option c, and as we have seen earlier, we cannot conclude anything about $\m$ being guilty or not guilty.
Hence, option (c) is the correct answer.
Although not necessary, the logic equivalent of the given statement will be:
$\Big[G\Rightarrow\neg\exists x:(W(x)\wedge L(x)\wedge\neg A(x))\Big]\equiv$
$\Big[G\Rightarrow\forall x:(W(x)\Rightarrow(\neg A(x)\Rightarrow\neg L(x)))\Big]$