PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SANJAY KAROL, J.] 163 Sarda (supra) has been consistently followed by this Court. In a recent case - Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat, this Court observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, law postulates two-fold requirements. Firstly, that every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and secondly, all the circumstances must be consistent pointing out only towards the guilt of the accused. We need not burden this judgment by referring to other judgments as the above principles have been consistently followed and approved by this Court time and again.” A 25. To establish the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution relies upon the following circumstances: C a) The appellant was residing in the same chawl as that of the prosecutrix; b) Appellant was found near the scene of the crime; c) The appellant made disclosure statements, i.e., dated 16.6.2010 Ext.47 and dated 17.6.2010 Ext.50, which led to the recovery of incriminating articles vide Memo Nos. Ext.48 and Ext.51. from the house of the appellant and another place where he had hidden the clothes belonging to him and the prosecutrix; d) The DNA reports prepared on scientific analysis by an expert, establishing the blood of the prosecutrix on banian of the appellant and his semen on the clothes of prosecutrix and her vaginal smear slide. B D E F 26. Let us examine whether all these circumstances stand established by the prosecution or not. Circumstance of 13 residing in the ‘chawl’ being seen at the spot of the crime 27. PW 1 and PW 2 stated that the appellant resided in the very same chawl as they, although they did not identify his house. Well, that’s about all. There being no other evidence of he residing there. Even if the version of the mother of having seen the appellant and giving him a matchbox, in the early hours of 12.6.2010, is believed, the same does not advance the case of the prosecution any further. The appellant was not G H