that the cell phone so seized and identified belonged to the deceased. Though two witnesses being PW-2 and PW-8 have been examined to prove the seizure of two SIMs having the number 8965833541 and 9993211077 made under Ex. P-7, both of them have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. Even the call details have not been proved as per the requirement of the Evidence Act. This apart, the prosecution has not collected any evidence that the cell phone allegedly seized from the accused/appellant was used for calling the deceased. Thus as already said, this case hinges on the fulcrum of circumstantial evidence and no eyewitness is there to fortify the same. The settled legal position in the cases where circumstantial evidence is the only material to arrive at a particular conclusion postulates that the onus to prove the completness of chain is on the prosecution and the falsity or untenability of the defence set up by the accused cannot be made basis for ignoring serious infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case. In slew of decisions the Apex Court went on to emphasize that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should, and not may be fully established. The Apex Court has reiterated that the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. However, in the case in hand the prosecution has failed in its duty of collecting the material capable of forming a complete chain of circumstances
