The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt and found: 1) Circumstantial Evidence: Since the prosecution's case is based on direct evidence, the failure to prove circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt is immaterial. 2) Sentencing: The Court stated that the Trial Court and High Court did not adequately consider both mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The Supreme Court noted there exists a possibility of reform since it was the appellant's first offence and his behaviour in prison was satisfactory. Other Issues: Minor discrepancies or contradictions in the testimonies of eye-witnesses were not of such nature as to persuade the Court in disbelieving their testimonies entirely.