deceased, thereafter, he took the deceased out for dinner and they had dinner, the deceased also purchased some dinner parcel for the accused; then, he left for his house; only in the next day morning, he saw the deceased dead in his room. Except the above witnesses, there is no other evidence available to link the accused with the murder. Even as per the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4, PW.2 saw the accused, deceased and PW.4 consuming liquor together in the room of the deceased. As per PW.4, after consuming liquor, he took the deceased out for dinner and after having dinner, he left the deceased and went to his house. From the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4, the prosecution has established that the accused was seen together with the deceased before the occurrence. It is the only circumstance established by the prosecution. 9. It is settled principle that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution should prove all the circumstances beyond any reasonable doubt and the proved circumstances should form a chain unerringly pointing the guilt of the accused. In the instant case, except the last seen theory, there is no other link available. It is settled law that the last seen theory is an important link in a chain of circumstances, which would point towards the guilt of the accused with some certainty. But it is also well settled that it is not prudent to base the conviction solely on the last seen theory alone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported 2016 (1) SCC (Cri.) 386 (Nizam and another ..vs..State of Rajasthan) has held as follows:-
