In Brief
This criminal appeal concerned the conviction of appellants for murder. The case centred on ballistic evidence—examining whether a recovered pistol matched bullets and cartridge cases from the deceased. The Supreme Court found the forensic reports contradictory: only one of two pistols was examined, test materials were compared incompletely, and one report contained erroneous recovery details. Eyewitness evidence was also seriously doubted. The Court held that the appellants' refusal to undergo an Identification Parade could not stand alone as conviction basis. Absent reliable ballistic and eyewitness evidence, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants were acquitted and released.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.