As per case facts, A1, with A2 and A3, planned and executed the murder of A1's husband, Sanjeevan, due to illicit intimacy between A1 and A2 and the deceased's suspicion. ... They smothered him, A2 cut his throat, and they buried his body. A missing person complaint was filed by A1. The body was later exhumed, identified by relatives, and post-mortem revealed asphyxia as the cause of death, ruling out suicide. Police investigation led to the arrest of the accused, and recoveries were made based on their confession statements. The trial court convicted them for murder and conspiracy. The appeals argue that it's a circumstantial case without direct evidence, key witnesses turned hostile, and conviction was based solely on police confessions without independent corroboration. The question arose whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of circumstances required for conviction in a circumstantial case, particularly given the lack of independent evidence and reliance on police confessions. Finally, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances, including motive, last seen theory, recovery, and medical evidence, and that the conviction based on police confessions without material evidence was unsustainable, thus setting aside the conviction and sentences.