In Brief
The State appealed the High Court's acquittal of accused persons charged with murdering Shabu and injuring Riyazuddin. The trial court had convicted the accused based on witness testimony, but the High Court reversed the conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal, holding that the High Court correctly found material doubts in the prosecution case: the key witness's presence at the crime scene was implausible (he was a practicing lawyer and municipal member during office hours), his conduct appeared unnatural (following cattle instead of going to court), and importantly, no bullet holes were found in the deceased's clothing despite a deep chest gunshot wound. These discrepancies warranted the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.