As per case facts, the appellant was accused of entering the deceased's house to commit robbery, resulting in the murder of two individuals and the theft of ornaments. The appellant ... was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge based on circumstantial evidence including being last seen with the deceased, recovery of ornaments, and blood stains on his clothes. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed a criminal appeal. The question arose whether the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt, especially given the lack of eye-witnesses, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and doubts regarding the recoveries and the impartiality of the investigation. Finally, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstantial chain was incomplete due to contradictions in evidence, questionable 'last seen' theory, and suspicious recoveries from accessible places lacking strong corroboration. Consequently, the conviction was quashed, and the appellant was acquitted.