In Brief
Yogesh and two co-accused were convicted of murder and criminal conspiracy based on recovery of the victim's belongings and one eyewitness testimony. The Supreme Court found the conviction unreliable. Two of three purported eyewitnesses turned hostile, denying the accused were the perpetrators. The third witness (victim's father) admittedly was not present at the incident and learned of it only from children's shouts. The Court held that circumstantial evidence alone—recovery of items—was insufficient without forensic or cogent connecting evidence. Finding no chain of evidence sufficient to exclude reasonable doubt, the Court acquitted the appellants.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.