Circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain; last seen and discovery-based recoveries were insufficient to sustain conviction.

Circumstantial evidence can sustain a conviction only when every incriminating circumstance is firmly proved and the circumstances form a complete chain pointing solely to guilt. Last seen evidence is a relevant circumstance, but it is not enough by itself without corroboration. In custody, only the portion of a statement that distinctly leads to discovery is admissible, while the confessionary portion to police remains barred. Here, the alleged recoveries did not establish a dependable nexus with the offence, and the prosecution failed to show that the articles recovered belonged to the deceased or materially linked the accused to the crime. The chain of circumstances was therefore incomplete, and the conviction could not be sustained; the accused were entitled to acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory and the recoveries said to have been made pursuant to custodial statements, when the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. The Court reiterated that every incriminating circumstance must be firmly proved and must form a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused. The last seen evidence was treated as a relevant circumstance, but not by itself sufficient to sustain conviction without corroboration. The Court further held that only that part of a custodial statement which distinctly leads to discovery is admissible, while the confessionary portion made to police while in custody is barred. The alleged recoveries did not establish a dependable nexus with the crime, as the prosecution failed to prove that the recovered articles belonged to the deceased or had any material bearing on the offence. On these facts, the chain of circumstances remained incomplete.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained on the basis of the proved circumstances, and the appellants were entitled to acquittal.

---