In Brief
A man died after falling into a well. His widow and her alleged paramour were convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence, but the Supreme Court allowed their appeal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete, coherent chain of circumstances proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key gaps included: absence of eyewitnesses, omitted confessional statements, hearsay evidence, and medical findings consistent with suicide or accidental death. The possibility that the informant (a cousin with property interests) falsely implicated them could not be ruled out. The Court reaffirmed that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof in criminal trials.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.