Must a conviction based on circumstantial evidence rest on a complete chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused?

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.302/34 — Circumstantial evidence — Chain of circumstances — Witness credibility — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.302/34 — Circumstantial evidence — Chain of circumstances — Held: A conviction resting on circumstantial evidence must be founded on a chain of circumstances so complete it excludes every hypothesis except guilt. Each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and be of a conclusive nature. (¶11) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.302/34 — Witness credibility — Delayed disclosure — Held further: A witness's statement about a gravely incriminating circumstance, kept silent without cogent reason, is bound to lose most of its value. An interested witness who withholds such a circumstance from the informant casts serious doubt on his testimony. (¶16, 18) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.302/34 — Circumstantial evidence — Recoveries — Held further: Recoveries made three days after arrest, proved only through an interested witness with the other seizure witness not examined, do not complete the chain of circumstances. The appeal against acquittal was accordingly dismissed. (¶20, 21)