In Brief
A man was convicted of murdering his uncle with the help of a female co-accused, based primarily on testimony from a sole eyewitness (his cousin). The Supreme Court set aside the conviction, finding the eyewitness evidence wholly unreliable due to multiple improbabilities: the witness was intoxicated, claimed to have silently watched a one-hour murder without raising alarm, inexplicably delayed reporting the crime for days despite nearby relatives, and was viewing the scene from 15 cubits away in darkness. The alleged motive (illicit relationship between accused) was also insufficiently proved. The Court held that while single-witness testimony can support conviction, the evidence must pass a stringent test of reliability and credibility. Here it did not, and the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.