In Brief
The appellant, a former police constable, was convicted of murdering his wife by strangulation and hanging. He appealed on the ground that the conviction rested entirely on circumstantial evidence with no eyewitness. The Supreme Court found that the medical evidence did not conclusively prove homicidal death; the post-mortem showed absence of features typical of homicidal hanging. Witness statements, re-recorded after four years, contained inconsistencies. The accused's son testified to the couple's affectionate relationship, contradicting the prosecution's motive theory. The Court held that the circumstantial evidence failed to establish an unbroken chain ruling out innocence. Given reasonable doubt and the principle that wrongful acquittal is preferable to wrongful conviction, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.