Court’s decision
The Supreme Court of India allowed the criminal appeal filed by Rohit Jangde and set aside his conviction for the alleged murder of his six-year-old stepdaughter. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances. The “last seen together” theory was found unreliable, the alleged Section 27 recovery was legally untenable as the accused was not in custody, and the DNA evidence only established death—not culpability. Observing that “a botched investigation leaves many questions unanswered,” the Court extended the benefit of doubt and ordered the appellant’s immediate release.
Facts
The case arose from the disappearance of a six-year-old girl on 5 October 2018 in District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. The appellant, her stepfather, was living with two wives and three children. Following a domestic quarrel and assault allegation, the second wife left the house and was hospitalized.
The child allegedly went missing the same day. However, no immediate missing complaint was lodged. An FIR was registered only on 11 October 2018.
On 13 October 2018, burnt bones and ashes were allegedly recovered from a field, and a skull and bones wrapped in a green saree were recovered from a canal. DNA testing matched certain vertebrae and teeth to the biological parents of the deceased.
The Trial Court convicted the accused based on three circumstances: last seen evidence, recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and DNA matching. The High Court affirmed the conviction.
Issues
The Supreme Court examined whether the three circumstances formed a complete chain of evidence pointing solely to the guilt of the accused.
It specifically addressed:
- Whether the “last seen together” theory was credible.
- Whether recovery under Section 27 was admissible.
- Whether DNA matching established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether Section 106 of the Evidence Act shifted the burden to the accused.
Appellant’s arguments
The defence argued that the accused was arrested on 6 October 2018 in a separate assault case and remained in custody until 8 October 2018. Interpolations in arrest records cast serious doubt on the prosecution timeline.
It was contended that if the accused was in custody, the last seen theory failed. Further, the alleged Section 27 statement was recorded at 10:30 a.m. on 13 October 2018, but arrest was shown at 10:00 p.m. the same day—meaning the accused was not in police custody when the statement was made.
The defence argued that DNA evidence only proved death, not murder by the appellant. The absence of time of death and failure to establish corpus delicti weakened the case.
Respondent’s arguments
The State relied on three circumstances:
- Testimony of a neighbour supporting the last seen theory.
- Recovery of burnt bones and skull at the instance of the accused.
- DNA profile matching vertebrae and teeth with biological parents.
It was argued that the accused’s knowledge of the recovery location was incriminating under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Analysis of the law
The Court reiterated the principle that conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain leading only to guilt.
On Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that information must be supplied while the accused is in police custody. Since the arrest memo showed arrest at 22:00 hours on 13 October 2018—after the alleged disclosure—the recovery could not be admitted under Section 27.
However, relying on precedents including Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma and Dharam Deo Yadav, the Court held that such conduct could be admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, though it remains a weak link requiring corroboration.
Precedent analysis
The Court referred to:
- Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra – Section 27 as proviso to Sections 24–26.
- Durlav Namasudra v. Emperor – Information given before custody cannot attract Section 27.
- Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh – Custody includes surveillance or restraint.
- Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay – Recovery evidence may be admissible as conduct under Section 8 but is only a link.
Applying these authorities, the Court held that recovery alone could not sustain conviction.
Court’s reasoning
The Court found major inconsistencies:
- The last seen theory collapsed due to arrest timeline discrepancies and delay in lodging the missing complaint.
- No immediate inquiry was conducted when the child allegedly disappeared.
- The FIR was lodged days after the accused’s release from custody.
Regarding DNA evidence, only vertebrae and teeth matched parental DNA. The skull did not match. The saree allegedly belonging to the mother was never identified in court.
The Court held that DNA evidence proved death but not authorship of crime.
Section 8 conduct evidence was insufficient to independently establish guilt.
The absence of time of death and non-recovery of complete corpus delicti further weakened the prosecution.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction by the Trial Court and affirmation by the High Court were set aside.
The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Implications
This ruling reinforces stringent standards governing circumstantial evidence. It clarifies that:
- Section 27 recovery requires police custody.
- Conduct evidence under Section 8 is corroborative, not substantive.
- DNA matching proves identity of remains but not necessarily culpability.
- Faulty investigation cannot be cured by conjecture.
The judgment underscores judicial caution in cases involving child victims where investigative lapses risk wrongful conviction.
Case Law References
- Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra (1969) 2 SCC 872
- Durlav Namasudra v. Emperor (1931 SCC OnLine Cal 146)
- Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 5 SCC 509
- Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay (1954) 2 SCC 516
FAQs
1. Can recovery be admitted under Section 27 if the accused is not in custody?
No. Section 27 applies only when information is given while the accused is in police custody.
2. Does DNA evidence automatically prove guilt?
No. DNA can establish identity of remains but does not, by itself, prove who committed the offence.
3. Can conviction rest solely on conduct under Section 8?
No. Conduct evidence is a weak link and must be corroborated by other strong circumstances.