In Brief
A woman was convicted of murdering her brother-in-law by strangulation based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court allowed her appeal, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Although the post-mortem noted strangulation marks, the wife's own police complaint alleged the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison tablets. The doctor did not preserve the body's viscera for chemical analysis despite indicators of poisoning. Independent witnesses and the investigating officer supported the suicide theory. The Court held that where two plausible explanations exist—murder or suicide—and the prosecution's evidence chain is incomplete, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.