As per case facts, the deceased went missing, and a missing person report was filed by her brother stating her husband, a habitual drinker, had turned her out. Her dead ... body was later recovered from a canal. An FIR was registered, and the complainant mentioned that the accused was "last seen" with the deceased. The accused was convicted by the Special Court, leading to the present appeal in the High Court, where his sentence was suspended. The question arose whether the circumstantial evidence, particularly the "last seen" theory with its inconsistencies and a significant time gap between last sight and body recovery, was sufficient to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Finally, the High Court, applying Supreme Court precedents on circumstantial evidence, determined that the chain of events was incomplete. The inconsistencies in witness statements and the nine-day gap between the "last seen" incident and the body's discovery created reasonable doubt, making it impossible to rule out another person's involvement. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the accused was acquitted.