10 the prosecution must establish a chain of unbroken events unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused and none other [See C. Chenga Reddy and others vs. State of A.P 1 , Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy vs. State of A.P. 2 , Majenderan Langeswaran vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another 3 and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra4]. As long back as in the year 1952, in Hanumant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh5, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court observed as under: ‘It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.’ 1 (1996) 10 SCC 193 (2006) 10 SCC 172 3 (2013) 7 SCC 192 4 (1984) 4 SCC 116 5 (1952) 2 SCC 71 2