*Padman Bibhar V. State of Odisha (2025 SC)* 1. *Ramanand V. State of Himachal Pradesh (1981 SC)* was quoted: “_perfect proof is seldom to be had in this imperfect world and absolute certainty is a myth_”. 2. The prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, taken cumulatively to form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities, crime was committed by the accused and none else. Further, the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. 3. The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more (corroborative evidence) establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant. 4. ⁠*Sujit Biswas V. State of Assam (2013 SC)* was quoted: “_Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that "may be" proved, and something that "will be proved"….. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between "may be" true and "must be" true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of *dispassionate judicial scrutiny*, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record._”.