Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain excluding innocence to sustain conviction.

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for strangling Lakshmi, with whom he allegedly had an illicit relationship, after a dispute concerning money she had lent him.

The Sessions Court sentenced him to life imprisonment and imposed a fine.

The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence. Lakshmi’s son and other relatives testified to the relationship and alleged financial dispute, but none placed the appellant with her at the time of the incident.

The High Court considered the appellant’s appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence.

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence established the appellant’s guilt under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt

2. Whether the alleged recovery of the saree and the evidence of the deceased’s relationship and financial dispute with the appellant sufficiently connected him to the murder

Section 302 IPC prescribes punishment for murder.

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must form a complete chain pointing only to the accused’s guilt and excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

The Court cited no specific precedent for this principle.

The evidence of the deceased’s relationship with the appellant and their alleged financial dispute did not establish that he was present at the house on the night of the murder.

The prosecution’s account of the loan and the amount allegedly given to the appellant was not corroborated by other material.

The saree allegedly recovered at the appellant’s instance had no bloodstains, was not sent for forensic examination, and the recovery witnesses had turned hostile.

In the absence of evidence connecting the appellant to the crime, the circumstances did not form a complete chain establishing guilt.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC, and acquitted the appellant.