Supreme Court: Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof in Landmark Acquittal

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has acquitted three individuals previously convicted of murdering a 10-year-old boy in 2007, highlighting the critical difference between suspicion and proof. The bench, led by Justices M M Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma, underscored that evidence presented had 'substantial gaps' and failed to conclusively establish guilt.

The apex court's decision overturned the Uttarakhand High Court's 2017 verdict, which had upheld a life sentence for the three accused. The ruling reiterated the importance of evidence over conjecture, stating that scientific tests should not be disregarded in favor of doubtful testimony.

The case, deeply rooted in circumstantial evidence, attracted scrutiny for omitting key details, such as the names of two appellants in the FIR. The Supreme Court criticized the previous court judgments for overlooking these omissions and stressed that circumstantial evidence requires rigorous examination to uphold convictions.

(With inputs from agencies.)