Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain; missing links and unreliable proof cannot sustain conviction for rape and murder.

In a circumstantial evidence case, conviction for rape and murder can stand only where each circumstance is firmly proved, points unerringly to guilt, and forms a complete chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The alleged extra-judicial confession was rejected as inconsistently proved, the last seen circumstance was not established beyond reasonable doubt, and the claimed discovery of the body at the accused's instance was unsupported by reliable panchnama and consistent evidence. Alleged false explanation, minor abrasions and blood-stained clothes were insufficient to complete the chain. With the crucial links missing, suspicion could not replace legal proof, and the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for rape and murder based solely on circumstantial evidence was sustainable when the alleged last seen circumstance, discovery of the body at the instance of the accused, and other incriminating circumstances were not satisfactorily proved.

Analysis: In a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be firmly established, must point unerringly to guilt, and must form a complete chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The alleged extra-judicial confession was rightly rejected because it was not consistently proved. The alleged last seen circumstance was not established beyond reasonable doubt, particularly since it was not reflected in the inquest report and the supporting evidence was not fully reliable. The alleged discovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused was also not proved satisfactorily, as there was no proper supporting panchnama, the inquest report did not mention the accused, and the evidence on this point was inconsistent. The alleged false explanation, the minor abrasions on the accused's genital, and the blood stains on his clothes were insufficient to complete the chain of proof. Where the crucial link in the chain fails, suspicion, however grave, cannot replace legal proof.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained and the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---