Circumstantial evidence in acquittal appeals must form a complete chain before conviction can stand.

In an appeal against acquittal, the SC reiterated that interference is justified only when the trial court's view is plainly unsustainable, not merely because another view is possible. The prosecution's circumstantial case failed because the alleged last-seen and trunk-removal witnesses were disbelieved for unnatural conduct, delayed disclosures, and material contradictions, and the claimed recovery of blood-stained articles was unreliable after prior search and sealing of the flat. Even if last-seen evidence was accepted, it did not complete the chain needed to prove murder or disappearance of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The acquittal was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal and convicting the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence, and whether the circumstances relied upon were proved beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain convictions for murder and causing disappearance of evidence.

Analysis: The Court held that in an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only when the trial court's view is palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous, or demonstrably unsustainable; a mere possible different view on the evidence is not enough. Examining the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, the Court found that the witnesses said to have seen the appellant taking out a trunk from his flat were rightly disbelieved by the trial court because their conduct was unnatural, their disclosures were delayed, and their evidence suffered from material contradictions. The Court further held that the alleged recovery of blood-stained articles from the appellant's flat was not trustworthy, since the flat had already been searched and sealed, with the keys left with the appellant's brother-in-law, making the later recovery doubtful. The circumstance of the deceased being last seen with the appellant, even if accepted, did not by itself complete the chain necessary to prove guilt.

Conclusion: The High Court erred in disturbing the acquittal, the prosecution failed to establish a complete and reliable chain of circumstantial evidence, and the appellant's conviction could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was restored and the appellant stood relieved of the conviction and sentence recorded by the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, reversal is warranted only when the trial court's appreciation of evidence is plainly unsustainable; where circumstantial evidence does not form a complete and reliable chain, conviction cannot stand.

---