In Brief
The appellant was convicted of murdering two women (Anusha Sarkar and her mother) alongside another accused based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court allowed his appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove his culpability beyond reasonable doubt. Although the principal accused had a clear motive (family opposition to his relationship), no direct motive existed for the appellant, whose only alleged connection was friendship with the principal accused. Key evidence—blood-stained clothes, a recovered laptop, and fingerprints—proved unreliable: the blood groups of the deceased were not established, the laptop was unrelated to the crime, and the matching fingerprint sample went missing. The Court held that without eyewitness testimony, a credible motive, or strong circumstantial links, the appellant deserved the benefit of doubt.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.