In Brief
Two men were convicted of murdering a 17-year-old boy based on circumstantial evidence, but the Supreme Court acquitted them. The prosecution relied on three pillars: the 'last seen' circumstance, motive, and recovery of weapons. The Court found the main eyewitness testimony unreliable due to a one-week delay in recording statements and material contradictions. It held the alleged motives—relating to the victim's father rather than the victim—were too weak. Finally, the weapons were improperly seized without sealing, violating legal procedure. Lacking credible evidence and with all grounds weakened, the Court granted the appellants the benefit of doubt and directed their immediate release."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.