As per case facts, the appellant was convicted of double murder and disappearance of evidence, stemming from an alleged affair with the wife of one victim. The prosecution claimed he ... killed the mother-in-law, then the husband, and disposed of evidence. The appeal argued that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimony about the accused being last seen, discovery of weapons, reconstruction of the crime scene, and CCTV footage, did not form a complete and cogent chain of events for conviction. The question arose whether the prosecution had established a complete chain of incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, especially given the challenges to the admissibility and reliability of crucial evidence. Finally, the court found the prosecution failed to prove all necessary incriminating circumstances with reliable evidence. The conviction based on suspicion, surmises, and conjectures was set aside, emphasizing that for circumstantial cases, proof must be conclusive, not just strong suspicion.