30 untrustworthiness of the chance witness PW-10 – his contradictions in deposition, admission to being a stock police witness, and who by his admission saw the accused for a very brief while, as well as the inexplicable delay in holding TIP – together undermine the prosecution story about identification of the accused, and their alleged role in the crime. Submissions of the state 53. Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General (AAG) for the State of Madhya Pradesh, argued that this court should not disturb the concurrent findings of the appellant’s guilt recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and confirmed by the High Court in its impugned judgment. She submitted that though the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution was successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt, every circumstance, and also in conclusively establishing the guilt of the accused/appellants, on a cumulative reading of all circumstances. She emphasized that the conclusive nature of the evidence is such that any hypothesis of the appellants’ innocence is ruled out and that the only conclusion that can be reached is that they and none others, are guilty of the crime of triple murder, which they were charged with. 54. Heavy reliance was placed on the findings in the ballistic report, wherein each circumstance was proved by the expert evidence. In this regard, counsel relied on Ex. P25, the map of the crime spot prepared by PW-31 IO which found two fired cartridges (at Point 7) and one live bullet (at Point 6). The bullets were seized and recorded at Ex. P27, the seizure memo. The postmortem report Ex. P44 indicated and forwarded a bullet, recovered from Megha’s body. The recovery of this bullet was also deposed to by PW-15 Dr. P. S. Thakur. The bullet was seized under memo Ex. P127. Likewise, PW-32 had extracted a bullet from Rahul’s foot, in the early hours of 20.06.2011 at MY