In Brief
Two men were convicted of murdering a 17-year-old boy, with a third juvenile offender handled separately. The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence: that the accused were seen near the victim's house, had motives (disputes over money, employment, and a broken relationship), and knives were recovered from them. The Supreme Court acquitted them, finding the witness testimony unreliable (statements delayed by 10 days with contradictions), the alleged motives insufficiently connected to the victim, and the seized weapons improperly handled without sealing or security. The Court held that circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain ruling out reasonable innocence, which prosecution failed to establish here.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.