In Brief
Two brothers were convicted of murdering a third brother on the sole testimony of one eyewitness—the deceased's brother himself. The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, holding that the eyewitness's conduct was unnatural and inconsistent with ordinary human behaviour: he failed to attempt rescue despite being present, did not seek immediate medical aid despite a nearby clinic, and did not even inform his nearby mother. Two other alleged eyewitnesses turned hostile and contradicted his version. The Court found serious gaps in investigation, including the failure to show the recovered weapon to the medical examiner. Given 15 severe injuries allegedly inflicted in 5 minutes, improbable facts, and the eyewitness being a close relation, the Court held conviction unsafe and granted the benefit of doubt."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.