Circumstantial evidence and last-seen theory sustain conviction where the accused gives no explanation for incriminating links.

In a circumstantial evidence case, guilt must rest on a complete chain excluding every reasonable alternative, but the prosecution need not examine every cited witness and minor discrepancies do not vitiate otherwise reliable evidence. Hostile testimony may still be relied on to the extent it supports the prosecution, and last-seen proximity, coupled with an unexplained incriminating circumstance, can strengthen the chain. Here, the deceased was last seen with the accused, the post-mortem showed homicidal death by throttling and smothering, the deceased's mobile phone was found in the accused's possession, and his conduct after the was incriminating. The SC held that the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain and justified the conviction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's conviction for murder and theft stood proved on circumstantial evidence, including the last-seen circumstance, motive, conduct after the , and the effect of non-examination of some cited witnesses and alleged discrepancies in the prosecution evidence.

Analysis: In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, guilt must be established by a complete chain of circumstances that is consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt and excludes every reasonable alternative. The prosecution is not bound to examine every cited witness; the choice of witnesses is ordinarily for the prosecutor, and non-examination of some witnesses does not by itself destroy the case if the evidence otherwise proves the charge. Hostile testimony is not effaced from the record and may be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution. Minor contradictions or omissions that do not affect the core of the prosecution version do not justify rejection of the evidence as a whole. Where the accused is last seen with the deceased and fails to explain the incriminating circumstances, that failure may strengthen the chain of circumstances. In the present case, the deceased was last seen with the appellant shortly before her death, the post-mortem established homicidal death by throttling and smothering, the appellant's conduct after the was incriminating, the mobile phone of the deceased was traced to the appellant's possession, and the appellant offered no satisfactory explanation for the incriminating circumstances.

Conclusion: The circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain pointing to the appellant's guilt, and the conviction was justified.

---