As per case facts, on 04.10.2016, in a railway station waiting room, Arjun Patle (A-1) assaulted Abhay Kumar with an axe, causing his death, and then looted his mobile phone ... and wallet. The mobile phone was subsequently sold to Komal (A-2) and then to Harish (A-3). All three were convicted by the trial court for various offenses, including murder and handling stolen property. The appellants appealed to the High Court, challenging the legality and correctness of their conviction and sentence, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The question arose whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the appellants' guilt, especially regarding mobile phone ownership, recovery of the axe and wallet, and the relevance of prior criminal antecedents. Finally, the High Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the ownership of the mobile phone, the recovery of the wallet lacked proper identification, and the blood-stained axe recovery alone was insufficient without corroboration. It also noted that criminal antecedents cannot be the sole basis for conviction. Consequently, the High Court found that the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence were not met, granting all appellants the benefit of doubt and acquitting them.