In Brief
The appellant was convicted of murder in a case involving alleged dacoity and death by strangulation. The main evidence against him was a mobile phone recovered from his possession and a chain of circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court allowed his appeal after finding significant discrepancies in the recovery narrative, the unreliability of witness testimony, the absence of a proper identification procedure (Test Identification Parade), and a contradiction between the charge (strangulation) and the proven cause of death (knife injuries inflicted by a co-accused). The Court held that common intention under IPC Section 34 requires intention for the specific offence charged, and that weak, discrepant circumstantial evidence entitles the appellant to the benefit of doubt. The conviction was set aside.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.