As per case facts, one Mahadev Baburao Gadhwe lodged a complaint after finding an unknown person lying dead with a grievous head injury. The appellant, a driver, was last seen ... with the deceased, transporting fish. Their vehicle broke down, and money was transferred to the deceased by a businessman. The prosecution alleged the appellant killed the deceased to steal money, recovering bloodstained clothes and an axle rod. The trial court convicted the appellant for murder and destruction of evidence. The appellant appealed, claiming false implication, lack of eyewitnesses, incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence, unproven 'last seen' theory, unreliable recovery of items from an open place, discrepancies in forensic reports, unestablished motive, and unproven identity of the deceased. The question arose whether the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including the 'last seen' theory, recovery of evidence, and motive, beyond a reasonable doubt, sufficient to uphold the conviction. Finally, the High Court concluded that the 'last seen' theory was not cogently proved due to the wide time gap and possibility of third-party intrusion. The recovery of bloodstained clothes and the weapon from an open place was deemed unreliable, and the motive was not convincingly established. The court found that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the circumstances did not form a complete chain leading to an irresistible conclusion of the appellant's guilt, thus acquitting the appellant of all charges.