As per case facts, the appellant and a co-accused were convicted for murder and other offenses after the deceased, Gurmail Singh, was last seen with them. Gurmail Singh's body was ... later found in a canal, and a tractor was also recovered. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including 'last seen' testimony and discoveries made based on the appellant's disclosure. However, there was a significant time gap between when the deceased was last seen and the approximate time of death indicated by the post-mortem report, and many of the discoveries were already known to the police from the co-accused. The trial court and High Court had relied on Section 106 of the Evidence Act to infer guilt due to the appellant's lack of explanation.The question arose whether the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt, especially given the weaknesses in the 'last seen' evidence due to the time gap and the validity of the discoveries, and whether Section 106 was correctly applied.Finally, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The 'last seen' evidence was weakened by the long time gap, and most of the discoveries were not distinct facts. The court also clarified that Section 106 of the Evidence Act was misapplied, as it only shifts the burden for facts especially within knowledge after other facts are established. Thus, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was released.