In Brief
Two appellants were convicted of conspiracy to murder under the Indian Penal Code based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and incoherent, failing to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Although suspicion existed, the prosecution could not elevate its case from 'may be true' to 'must be true'. When two views are possible on evidence—one pointing to guilt and one to innocence—the accused must be given the benefit of doubt. The Court set aside the conviction, discharged bail bonds, and directed release of the appellant in custody.">
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.