JAGTA vs STATE OF HARYANA

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused of murder and attempted rape, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must be consistent with guilt and free from reasonable doubt. The Court found significant infirmities in the prosecution's case, including unreliable evidence regarding the recovery of ornaments and the nature of the confession. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a clear link between the accused and the crime, thus granting the benefit of doubt to the accused under Article 136.