Accused persons accepted that they had taken the couple on a visit to sunset point and they made them drink coffee by pouring sleeping pills in it. After drinking coffee, the husband became unconscious and he was given five injections of poison. After giving him injections of poison, he died and they wrapped his dead body in a sheet and placed it in the room. This room was hired at Raghunath Dharamshala. Trial Court found that though the case of the prosecution rested on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances clearly established the accusations. in support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the circumstances highlighted do not establish the accusations. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the quilt of another person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. The settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and they should be totally inconsistent with his innocence. The circumstances should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. It was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. The circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. The reasonable doubt is connected with the factum probandum and the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact. In order to justify the inference of guilt, the facts must be connected with the innocence of the accused and it should be incapable of explanation if there is any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt and if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled, as of right, to be acquitted. There no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, but it should be tested by the law relating to evidence because it has been laid down by this Court in various cases. It has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The only evidence which appears to have been pressed into service by the prosecution was that the injections were recovered from a lane near the house of the accused. The finding of the Court was not verified through the prosecution evidence and the medical evidence. According to the report of F.S.L., the poison was found in the stomach, liver, heart, kidney as well as lungs. In view of the shaky nature of the evidence adduced, it would be unsafe to convict the appellants. Submit