A murder conviction cannot stand where circumstantial evidence fails to form a complete chain.

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the alleged murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The prosecution case rested principally on the informant’s initial statement that, after returning home, her father had told her that he killed her mother with a sword.

At trial, the informant denied that her father had made that statement and was declared hostile; the other witnesses were either hearsay witnesses or did not provide direct evidence of the killing.

The deceased’s body had been cremated before any medical examination.

A blood-stained sword was allegedly seized from the appellant’s house, but the stains were not subjected to forensic examination, and the Investigating Officer was not examined.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC; he appealed against the conviction and sentence.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder, where the case rested on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances did not establish a complete chain connecting him to the offence.

2. Whether the alleged extra-judicial confession and the recovery of the sword could sustain the conviction when the informant turned hostile and the alleged blood stains were not forensically corroborated.

3. Whether the prosecution proved that the death was homicidal despite the absence of medical examination of the deceased’s body.

The appellant was charged and convicted under Section 302 IPC, which concerns the offence of murder.

In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt and establish a chain sufficient to connect the accused with the offence.

An alleged extra-judicial confession must be legally proved; the Court described such evidence as weak and found it unproved in this case.

No judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that no witness gave direct evidence of the killing: the informant disavowed the alleged confession at trial, while the remaining witnesses were hearsay or otherwise did not establish the appellant’s involvement.

The sword seizure did not provide reliable corroboration because the alleged blood stains were not examined by the FSL, and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer left the place of occurrence and the nature of the stains unproved.

The cremation of the body before medical examination also meant that the prosecution had not established that the death was homicidal.

Taken together, these deficiencies left the alleged confession and the other circumstances unproved and the circumstantial chain incomplete.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and directed his release from custody.