Short Note : 1. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the case purely depends for its success on circumstantial evidence. Where there is no eye-witness to the murder and the case against the accused depends entirely on circumstantial evidence the standard of proof is that the circumstances relied upon must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by these circumstances should be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. It is true that in a case of circumstantial evidence not only should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly established but the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. But in a case where the various links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the accused as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation and he offers no explanation which if accepted, though not proved, would afford a reasonable basis for a conclusion on the entire case consistent with his innocence, such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain. Deonandan Mishra vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 801 , Khashaba Maruti Shelke vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2474 , Chandmal and Another vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1976 SC 917 , State of Punjab vs. Bhajan Singh and Others, AIR 1975 SC 258 and State of Punjab vs. Jagir Singh, AIR 1973 SC 3307, relied on. Appeal allowed.