In this case, the prosecution had been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the following circumstances:

1. On 19.12.1992 at about 6.30 PM when J was in his tea stall,he was called by accused
2. J went with C in that evening for settling up a dispute relating to wooden file
3. J did not return home that night
4. In 21.12. 1992 the dead body of J was found with his head severed in the ditch of P and the body wore a full pant.
5. on 24.12.1992 P.W 11 was examined by the I.O P W 15 , where P.W 1 told the I.O that J went along with Accused from the tea stall and
6. on 25.12.1992 on information furnished by accused S. and on being shown by the accused the severed head of the deceased lying concealed under shirts (s) was recovered.

From these chain of circumstances,only one hypothesis was possibile and that it was the accused committed the offence s u/s 302 IPC . In Muluk Raj vs State of Haryana, cited by counsel for the appellant s, the Supreme Court found that the chain of circumstantial evidence, in the case did not lead to culpability of the Accused and the prosecution had not been able to establish by such chain of circumstantial evidences, that there was no other hypothesis save and except the guilt of the accused and the conviction could not be based on strong suspicion without legal proof.

But in the present case, only one hypothesis was possible on the aforementioned chain of circumstances and that was accused had committed the offences u/s 302/201, IPC , and such chain of circumstances have been established by legal proof.

In the result, the conviction and sentences in respect of Accused - Appellant in the impugned judgement and order dated 3.9.1996 of the learned Additional Session Judge ,West Tripura ,was affirmed.