As per the case facts, the appellant was accused of murder and conspiracy, and subsequently convicted by the trial court, a decision affirmed by the High Court. The appellant appealed ... to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the findings of guilt by the lower courts were based on sufficient and conclusive evidence in a case primarily resting on circumstantial evidence, and if the principles of criminal jurisprudence were properly applied. Finally, the Supreme Court found that both the trial court and the High Court erred in finding the appellant guilty. The court emphasized that in circumstantial evidence cases, the circumstances must be conclusively established and point only to the guilt of the accused, excluding any other hypothesis. As the evidence did not meet this standard, the Supreme Court set aside the findings of guilt and sentence, allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellant of all charges.