The conviction of accused of murder in the absence of direct witness as wye witness and non

recovery of dead body depends upon the circumstantial evidence which are
unerring,unclinchling and in criminatinly pointing towards accused with no gap in chain of
circumstances as it is held by sc in catena of cases.
The present case is based upon circumstantial evidence as no one has seen the commission of
crime.The case in case of circumstantial evidence is well settled.The leading case being
SharadBirdhichandsarda vs State of Maharashtra(1984(4) Scc 116 .According to it
Circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing toward the guilt of the
accused.The circumstances taken cumulatively should form chain so completely that there is
no escape from the conclusion that within all human possibility the crime was committed by
the accused and should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of guilt
of the accused and inconsistent with his innconce.The said principle set out in the case
SailinderaRajdevPasvan and others vs.State of Gujarat ( Air 2020 Sc 180) in this case the
court observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence law postulate two fold
requirements.Firstly,that every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish guilt
of accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and secondly, all
the circumstances must be consistent pointing out only towards the guilt of the accused.We
need not burden this judgement by reffering to other judgements as thr above principles have
been consistently followed and approved by this court time and again.
In the above backdrop of the legal proposition,we proceed to deal with the
facts,circumstances and evidences of the present case and fins out as to Whether each link of
Chain of circumstances is fully established.
The basic link in the chain of circumstances with motive then move on to recovery and last
seen theory.