In Brief
A man was convicted of murdering a farmer during a dispute over irrigation rights. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction, finding that while the evidence clearly showed others inflicted fatal axe and sickle wounds, the case against this appellant was weak. He allegedly struck only a minor blow with a lathi (stick), inconsistent with the fatal injuries. The Court held that without proof of active participation or shared intent to kill—and with no motive or connection to the deceased—the appellant deserved acquittal. The burden of proof was not met.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.