Koshy, J.

Appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/= for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Appeal was filed from that judgment and since he was unable to appoint an advocate of his choice, court appointed a legal aid counsel at state expense. Allegation against him was that he killed one Sosi, an unmarried man aged 45 years, as he was suspected to have illicit relationship with wife of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that on 2.6.98 night the accused purchased and supplied liquor to the victim from the house of PW2 and subsequently they both together left that place. At 11 p.m. in the night, in the Sholayur-Chavadiyur Panchayath road, the accused inflicted fatal injuries on the head and other parts of Sosi by using stones and intentionally caused his death. After committing murder, the accused dragged the dead body of Sosi at a distance of one kilometre and partially buried the dead body in a pit in the bushy area of the property of one Muthu-Mudaliyar (not examined). The accused also set fire to the blood stained clothes of the deceased so as to destroy the evidence and thus the accused caused disappearance of evidence.

2. There is no eye witness in this case and prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence. It is settled principle of law that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be fully established, and the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances should be fully complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. In a case of circumstantial evidence not only various links of evidence should clearly establish guilt of the accused, but also it must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. The Apex Court in Sharad v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622) described five principles for convicting an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence which are as follows:

1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established, as distinguished from `may be' established.

2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature;

4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

It is well settled principle that unlike direct evidence, indirect circumstances which throw light, should lead from suspicion to certitude and care must be taken to avoid subjective pitfalls of exaggerating a conjecture into a conviction. Trial Court relied on four circumstances:

(1) Motive;

(2) Last seen together;

(3) Recovery of material objects at the instance of the accused; and

(4) Statement of the accused before the doctor.

Since conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, we are considering the evidence adduced by the witnesses to find out whether the above circumstances were proved and proved circumstances would lead only to the hypothesis that accused is guilty and nobody else.

3. PW11 gave the First Information Statement. On 3.6.98 morning, blood was found in the panchayath road by PW11, he, PW1 and others on further search saw the dead body in the pit. The dead body was found buried partially in the pit with the head downwards. On the basis of the information (Ext.P9) furnished by PW11, F.I.R was registered and thereafter on 5.6.98 report was filed making accusation against the accused. P