In Brief
A man was convicted of murdering his first wife by strangulation based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted him. The post-mortem report, the only key medical evidence, was ambiguous—it stated death was caused by asphyxia from hanging but also acknowledged the deceased had chronic tuberculosis, which could have caused death. The ligature marks on the neck could have resulted from the long journey of the body. The prosecution failed to clarify these issues when the appellant disclosed the deceased was under hospital treatment for tuberculosis. Applying the five principles of circumstantial evidence, the Court found the prosecution had not discharged its burden of proof, and when evidence permits conflicting conclusions, the benefit of doubt must favour the accused."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.