The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Vaibhav, who was convicted for the murder of his friend Mangesh. The case was based on circumstantial evidence. Vaibhav claimed that Mangesh’s death was accidental when Mangesh curiously examined a service pistol and pulled the trigger. Medical evidence showed the bullet traveled upward after entering Mangesh’s eye, supporting an accidental discharge. The absence of any motive or enmity further supported this theory. The Supreme Court noted that in a case relying solely on circumstantial evidence, the chain must point exclusively to guilt. Here, an alternative theory of accidental death was equally probable. Vaibhav’s suspicious conduct in hiding the body was attributed to fear rather than guilt. Applying the principle that when two reasonable conclusions are possible, the one favoring the accused must prevail, the Supreme Court acquitted him of murder under Section 302 IPC and Arms Act offences, upholding only the conviction under Section 201 IPC for destruction of evidence.