In Brief
Two men were convicted of murder by the High Court for allegedly shooting a person in a forest. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction, restoring acquittal. The Court found the prosecution failed to prove which accused actually fired the fatal shot and whether the dead body's recovery truly resulted from the accused's disclosure statements. Where circumstantial evidence permits two reasonable conclusions, an appellate court cannot disturb a trial acquittal. The evidence was insufficient to exclude reasonable doubt, so the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.