near the deceased. The evidence shows that in the area, the huts were made of fishing nets and there were no doors to the huts. That means anybody could enter any hut without obstruction and without being noticed. The conduct of the Appellant sleeping peacefully does not fit with the allegations against him. On the other hand, the possibility cannot be ruled out that somebody else, after commission of the offence, could have kept the dead body near him. In a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to rule out all other hyphotheses except that of the guilt of the accused. In the instant case, the strong possibility that somebody else could have committed the offence and then left the deceased near the Appellant who was fast sleep, is not ruled out. There are absolutely no other circumstances connecting the present Appellant with the crime. In fact, the C.A. reports show that there is no presence of semen or vaginal fluid on the private parts of the Appellant. He was immediately arrested and was in custody of the police till his medical examination. Therefore, this medical examination assumes importance which is more in consonance with his innocence than his guilt. In any case, the prosecution case does not travel beyond the realm of suspicion. The chain of circumstances against the Appellant URS 8 of 9
