Judgment : Chandra Shekhar Sharma, J. (i) Circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established, (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and (v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. "32. ... In the absence of proof of other circumstances, the only circumstance of last seen together and absence of satisfactory explanation cannot be made the basis of conviction. 33. Applying the legal principles culled out from the above decisions to the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, it is clear that there was considerable time gap between the time the appellant and the deceased were last seen together alive and recovery of the dead body. Therefore, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that it was the appellant and the appellant alone who had committed the offence. 46. Viewed in the above context, the circumstance of leading to discovery cannot be said to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as against the appellant. If that be the position, not only the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete, all the circumstances put forth by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant cannot be accepted as having been proved as valid pieces of evidence. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be given the benefit of doubt and is entitled to an acquittal on this count." "11.2. ... a circumstance of last seen does not, by itself, necessarily lead to an inference that the accused committed the crime. There must be something more that establishes a connection between the accused and the crime. For instance, there may be cases where close proximity between the event of last seen and the factum of death may persuade a rational mind to reach the irresistible conclusion that the last seen of the deceased is material and merits an explanation from the accused. For instance, there may be cases where close proximity between the event of last seen and the factum of death may persuade a rational mind to reach the irresistible conclusion that the last seen of the deceased is material and merits an explanation from the accused. ..." "In case of circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by independent evidence, and circumstances so proved must form complete chain without giving any chance of surmise or conjecture and must also be consistent with guilt of accused."