requirement of an unbroken chain in circumstantial evidence cases

In cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to establish a complete and unbroken chain of proved facts and circumstances pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused. Each individual link in the chain of circumstances must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the circumstances so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. If any crucial link in the chain—such as motive, last seen together theory, or physical recovery—is missing, unproved, or doubtful, the benefit of doubt must inevitably be extended to the accused. Mere suspicion, however strong, or speculative theories regarding motive and conduct cannot bridges gaps in the prosecution's evidence. If the chain of circumstances leaves a reasonable scope for the innocence of the accused or admits of an alternative explanation, the charge must fail. The legal threshold in circumstantial cases demands that the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused. (Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. | 2026 INSC 67)