In Brief
The appellant was convicted of murder (IPC s. 302) based on circumstantial evidence: he had travelled 200 km to inform the deceased's family of his minor illness, and the body was found in the appellant's mother's hut. The prosecution's motive theory (that the deceased had lent money to the appellant) was unproven. The Supreme Court held that in circumstantial evidence cases, an unbroken chain must connect the accused to guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Here, a single suspicious circumstance—travelling to inform of a minor illness—cannot alone establish culpability without direct evidence or a proven motive. The conviction was set aside and the appellant acquitted.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.