In Brief
A husband was convicted of murdering his wife by strangulation in their home in 1999. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, which rested on the testimony of a single credible witness (the deceased's brother), postmortem evidence of asphyxia by strangulation, and the circumstances of the death occurring in the appellant's home with only family members present. The Court held that quality of evidence, not quantity of witnesses, determines sufficiency for conviction. Where death occurs in the privacy of a home, residents bear a burden to explain how it happened. The appellant's failure to provide a plausible explanation for his wife's injuries, despite his presence at the scene, constituted a strong circumstance indicating guilt.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.