As per case facts, the deceased Sarat Nayak was dragged from his home by the two appellants, Sarat Behera and Bhaskar Behera (since deceased), while he was having dinner. He ... was then assaulted with a stick and axe, and his body was later found with bleeding injuries in front of the accused's house before disappearing. The body was subsequently recovered from a well, tied with a stone, at the instance of one of the accused. The trial court convicted both appellants for murder and other charges based on circumstantial evidence including 'last seen' testimony, injuries consistent with weapons used by the accused, and recovery of the body. The present appeal was filed challenging the conviction, arguing lack of independent witnesses, the deceased's criminal background, reliance on relative witnesses, and the prosecution's failure to explain the body's presence in the well. The question arose whether the circumstantial evidence, particularly the 'last seen' and body recovery at the accused's instance, sufficiently proved guilt despite the absence of independent witnesses and the deceased's character. Finally, the High Court affirmed the conviction, emphasizing that the 'last seen' circumstance shifted the burden to the accused to explain the deceased's death and the body's concealment. The court found a complete chain of circumstances proving guilt, upheld the reliability of relative witnesses given the lack of motive for false implication, and dismissed the arguments regarding the deceased's criminal past as irrelevant to the act of culpable homicide.