appellant as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is unsustainable and should be set aside. Submissions on behalf of the respondent-State:- 20. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent State fervently and vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and contended that the chain of incriminating circumstances is complete in all aspects exclusively pointing out towards the guilt of the accused. The learned counsel made the following pertinent submissions imploring the Court to 13dismiss the appeal and upheld the conviction of the accused appellant: - (i) That the statement of Ashok Kumar Pathak recorded as PW-1 during proceedings under Section 299 CrPC was rightly relied upon as admissible and reliable piece of evidence. The non-examination of Ashok Kumar Pathak during trial is not a deliberate act of prosecution, rather, the witness could not be examined during regular trial after apprehension of the accused appellant. The