In Brief
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeals of Satish Kumar and others, setting aside the High Court's conviction order and restoring the trial court's acquittal. The appellants were accused of murdering Ratti Ram using a gun. While circumstantial evidence (weapon recovery, forensic reports) existed, the prosecution failed to prove crucial elements: the validity of the disclosure statements led to the body's recovery, and critically, who actually fired the fatal shot. The High Court had improperly interfered with the trial court's acquittal despite it being a reasonable conclusion from the evidence. The Court held that when two reasonable conclusions exist, appellate courts should not disturb acquittal, and absent definitive proof of culpability, the benefit of doubt belongs to the accused.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.