In Brief
An appellant was convicted of murder based partly on circumstantial evidence involving recovery of a watch following his confessional statement. The appellant contested this, claiming police coercion in obtaining his signature on a receipt counterfoil. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's circumstantial evidence was incomplete and did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that without evidence showing the appellant was last seen with the deceased, the section 106 presumption could not apply. The incomplete chain of evidence was insufficient to prove murder, warranting the appeal's allowance and acquittal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.