The SC accepted that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty, employing the following reasoning: Circumstantial Evidence: Held that that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must show the accused to be guilty within all human probability and the circumstances must be fully established and conclusive. Recovery Evidence: 1) Even though evidence may have been recovered from an open and accessible place, that does not render it inadmissible, especially if it was sealed or concealed, 2) The accused was well aware of the site from where the victim’s body was recovered, and 3) It is possible to exclude some circumstances (here, relating to the seizure of the victim’s nails by a barber, not a forensics expert and failure of the serologist in detecting the origin of blood ), as other circumstances have proven the guilt of the accused conclusively On mitigating factors, the Court held that: Access to a Fair Defence: Accepted all of the defence’s arguments that that the accused did not have fair access to legal representation. Proportionate Sentence: Accepted all of the defence’s arguments that the trial court and High Court only considered the crime, and not the criminal/his state of mind/socioeconomic background, and the prosecution did not consider any evidence as to the possibility of the accused’s reform/rehabilitation. The Court considered that the accused was young, from a rural background, was studious and hardworking, made efforts to bring his family out of poverty, had no criminal antecedents/was a hardened criminal, and had displayed satisfactory conduct while in prison. Other Issues: Affirmed that prosecution must stand on the strength of its own case, and cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence.