Facts: On May 26, 2016, at approximately 11:00 p.m., the Appellant, Prakash Tukaram Bhosale, and a co-accused arrived at the house of the deceased, Suraj, on a motorcycle and took him away. The deceased's mother (PW 1) and brother (PW 2) witnessed this departure following a telephone call from the Appellant. At 4:00 a.m. the next morning, the deceased was found in a pool of blood near a temple, having sustained fatal crush injuries to the head and blunt trauma. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, primarily the "last seen together" theory, an alleged motive stemming from a quarrel four to six months prior, and the testimony of a watchman (PW 3) who claimed to have seen the assault but failed to report it immediately.Procedural Posture: The Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, convicted the Appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on December 18, 2019, sentencing him to life imprisonment. Aggrieved by this conviction, the Appellant approached the Bombay High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the co-accused expired, leading to the abatement of his specific appeal.Issue: Whether the circumstantial evidence, specifically the "last seen together" theory and the alleged motive, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt in the absence of a complete chain of incriminating circumstances?Holding: No, the conviction cannot be sustained. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Sessions Court's order, and acquitted the Appellant.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be so complete as to exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. Regarding the "last seen" theory, the Court noted a significant time gap (11:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m.) which did not exclude the possibility of intervention by a third party. The Court found the testimony of the sole alleged eye-witness (PW 3) to be unreliable and "got up" due to his unnatural conduct and admissions of police prompting. Furthermore, the alleged motive was deemed feeble and unproven, as no prior complaints had been lodged. The recovery of blood-stained clothes was rendered useless because the Chemical Analyser's report was inconclusive. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that "suspicion, however strong, cannot be a substitute for proof" and concluded that the prosecution failed to bridge the gap between "may be true" and "must be true".