In Brief
The Supreme Court acquitted two men convicted of murder by lower courts after finding the prosecution's case fundamentally flawed. The conviction rested solely on testimony from the victim's son and wife—both interested witnesses—who claimed to have witnessed the attack at a liquor shop. The Court found it physically impossible for these witnesses to have traveled 16 kilometres on a single bicycle within 30 minutes to reach the crime scene. Additionally, other eyewitnesses at the shop testified to multiple attackers, contradicting the prosecution's narrative. With reasonable doubt about the witnesses' presence and presence at the crime scene, and lacking corroborating evidence, the Court held the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt was not discharged and granted acquittal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.