stated that the Appellant never made any disclosure before him and that the police merely informed him of the alleged statement. Moreover, the seizure of the Appellant’s clothes, despite being found with bloodstains, does not strengthen the prosecution’s case, since the chemical examination report was inconclusive, failing to confirm whether the blood was human or linked to the deceased. Mr. Pati further submits that, P.W.6’s medical opinion regarding the possibility of injuries being caused by M.O.VI remains inconclusive, as he could not confirm whether the same axe was sent to him due to the absence of identification marks. This coupled with the inconclusive forensic report, prevents any definitive linkage between the Appellant and the alleged weapon of offense. Lastly, there is no direct evidence or unimpeachable circumstantial evidence linking the Appellant to the crime. The chain of circumstances remains incomplete, failing the test laid down in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 , where the Supreme Court held that, every link in the chain of circumstantial evidence must be established beyond reasonable doubt to convict an accused. Mr. Pati concludes his argument by submitting that mere suspicion or weak circumstantial evidence cannot substitute the high threshold of proof required in a criminal trial and, therefore, the Appellant deserves the benefit of doubt, and his conviction cannot be sustained in law.
