Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran acquitted a man who had been convicted by the trial court and the High Court of murdering his six-year-old stepdaughter, extending him the benefit of doubt on account of a flawed investigation. The Court held that a disclosure statement leading to recovery of evidence cannot be admitted under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act unless the accused was in police custody at the time of making such a statement — a condition not met in the present case — rendering the recovery evidence admissible only as corroborative conduct under Section 8, insufficient on its own to sustain conviction.

The appeal arose from a conviction of the accused, the stepfather of a six-year-old girl, for her alleged murder. The prosecution case rested on three circumstances: the “last seen together” theory based on a neighbour’s testimony; recovery of burnt bones and ashes from a field and skeletal remains from a canal allegedly pursuant to the accused’s statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and a forensic report indicating that the DNA profile of certain recovered remains matched the biological parents of the deceased child.

Also Read: Surviving Partner In Mutual Suicide Pact Liable For Abetment Of Suicide : Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals In Telugu Actress Death Case

On 05.10.2018, following a quarrel between the accused and his second wife, she left the matrimonial home. Her mother later visited the house to take the grandchildren and was informed that the accused had taken the younger child. A missing complaint was registered on 11.10.2018. On 13.10.2018, the accused allegedly led the police to recover bones and ashes from a field and a skull and other bones from a canal. The FSL report indicated DNA matching with vertebrae and teeth recovered from the canal, though the skull did not match.

On the overall quality of the investigation, the Court observed that "a botched investigation leaves many questions unanswered and in the present case, the murder of a six-year-old girl went unpunished and her stepfather was incarcerated on mere conjectures."

On the last seen together theory, the Court noted that the neighbour who deposed before the Court "volunteered this information to the Police, seven days after 05.10.2018; when already the said aspect was known to the mother and grandparents of the deceased child as also the Police, by virtue of the information supplied by the first wife of the accused on 05.10.2018 itself." The Court recorded that "the last seen together theory hence fails miserably."

On the interpolation in the arrest records, the Court stated that "there is clear interpolation in the date and though at column No. 8, of the FIR, the arrest is shown to have been carried out on 06.10.2018 at 13.40 hrs, in Column No. 2 the date and time have been changed from 05.10.2018 and 12.40 to 06 or 08.10.2018 and 13.40," adding that this raised "a reasonable doubt as to the arrest of the accused, which could have been at 12.40 hrs on 05.10.2018, seriously hampering the last seen theory as projected by the prosecution."

On the admissibility of the disclosure statement, the Court stated that "Section 27 of the Evidence Act clearly speaks of information received from a person accused of any offence while in the custody of the police leading to a discovery of a fact being enabled of proof in the trial. The accused at the time of the statement was not in the custody of the police and hence it is removed from the ambit of Section 27."

Reference was made to the decision in Durlav Namasudra v. Emperor (1931 SCC Online Cal 146), which held that "if information came from a person who was not in the custody of the police, then it cannot be brought under Section 27."

Relying on State of A.P. v. Gangula Satya Murthy (1997) 1 SCC 272, the Court observed that although a disclosure statement made outside custody falls outside Section 27, it remains admissible to show the accused's conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The Court stated that "the knowledge of the accused, which led to the detection of the bone remnants though not acceptable under Section 27 would all the same be acceptable evidence under Section 8, which by itself is a weak piece of evidence. The evidence under Section 8 can only offer corroboration and cannot by itself result in a conviction."

On the totality of circumstances, the Court observed that "the long gap when there was no complaint made about the missing child and the factum of none having questioned the accused, despite the family and police having been told that she went with the accused tilts the scales in favour of the accused; especially since he was released on 08.10.2018, two days before the FIR was lodged. Pertinent also is that since the corpus delicti was not recovered, there is no time of death specified. We are hence unable to uphold the conviction of the accused, and he has to be necessarily given the benefit of doubt."

Also Read: Physically Challenged Workers Deputed To Civil Hospital Through NGO And Paid Commission Cannot Claim Regularisation Or Government Servant Status: Gujarat High Court

The Court directed, “The Appeal is allowed. The order of the Trial Court convicting the accused and that of the High Court affirming the same are set aside. The accused shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chandrika Prasad Mishra, AOR Ms. Prashasti Singh, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Utsav Madan, Adv. Ms. Swati Surbhi, Adv.

For the Respondents: Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR Mr. Arjun D. Singh, Adv. Ms. Ishika Neogi, Adv. Mr. Divya Tripathi, Adv.

Case Title: Rohit Jangde v. The State of Chhattisgarh

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 162

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2026

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran