Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Last seen theory — Delay in lodging FIR — Accused in custody at relevant time — Chain of circumstances not complete — Benefit of doubt granted.
Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Discovery statement — Custody requirement — Statement not made while in police custody — Inadmissible under Section 27 — However admissible as conduct under Section 8.
Evidence Act — Section 8 — Conduct — Knowledge of place of recovery — Weak corroborative circumstance — Cannot by itself sustain conviction.
DNA Evidence — Partial match with biological parents — Establishes death — Does not establish guilt of accused in absence of complete chain.
Section 106 Evidence Act — Failure to explain — Cannot substitute prosecution’s burden — Applies only when foundational facts established.
Faulty Investigation — Serious interpolation in arrest memo — Doubt regarding timeline — Accused entitled to benefit of doubt.
CORE ISSUE
Whether the three circumstances relied upon by the High Court —
-
Last seen together theory,
-
Recovery of bones at the instance of the accused, and
-
DNA match with biological parents —
formed a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused stepfather.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
-
Deceased: 6-year-old girl.
-
Accused: Stepfather.
-
Date of quarrel: 05.10.2018.
-
Alleged disappearance: Around 05–06.10.2018.
-
Missing FIR registered: 11.10.2018.
-
Alleged recovery at accused’s instance: 13.10.2018.
-
Conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence.
The Court described the investigation as “botched” and riddled with inconsistencies.
ANALYSIS OF CIRCUMSTANCES
I. Last Seen Together Theory — Failed
Key infirmities:
-
Accused arrested on 06.10.2018 (possibly 05.10.2018 — interpolation noticed).
-
Missing complaint registered only on 11.10.2018.
-
FIR stated child missing at 9:00 PM on 06.10.2018 — after arrest.
-
No immediate complaint by mother or grandparents.
-
Police accompanied family on day of quarrel but made no inquiry.
-
Neighbour (PW8) volunteered “last seen” information only after 7 days.
Court held:
The last seen theory “fails miserably.”
The arrest timeline alone destroyed the prosecution narrative.
II. Section 27 Recovery — Legally Defective
Legal Requirement
Under Section 27 Evidence Act:
-
Statement must be made while accused is in police custody.
-
Only portion distinctly connected with discovery admissible.
Here:
-
Statement recorded at 10:30 AM on 13.10.2018.
-
Arrest shown at 22:00 hrs same day.
-
Accused not in custody at time of statement.
Thus Section 27 not attracted.
The Court relied on:
-
Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra
-
Durlav Namasudra v. Emperor
However, applying:
-
Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of U.P.
-
Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay
The Court held:
Even if not admissible under Section 27, recovery could be admissible as conduct under Section 8.
But:
Conduct evidence under Section 8 is weak and only corroborative.
III. DNA Evidence — Limited Probative Value
-
Vertebrae and teeth matched DNA of biological parents.
-
Skull and other bones did not match.
-
Saree wrapping not identified.
-
Corpus delicti not fully recovered.
-
No time of death established.
Court held:
DNA established death of child.
It did not establish:
-
When death occurred,
-
Who caused it,
-
That accused alone committed offence.
IV. Section 106 Evidence Act — Misapplied
High Court relied on failure of accused to explain recovery location.
Supreme Court clarified:
Section 106 applies only when prosecution first establishes foundational facts.
Here:
-
Chain incomplete,
-
Timeline doubtful,
-
Arrest suspicious,
-
No proof of custody during crucial period.
Hence Section 106 cannot fill evidentiary gaps.
CRITICAL INVESTIGATIVE DEFECTS
-
Interpolation in arrest memo.
-
Contradictory arrest dates.
-
No inquiry into missing child despite earlier police involvement.
-
FIR delayed.
-
No attempt to establish time of death.
-
No conclusive corpus delicti.
-
Section 27 statement legally defective.
The Court noted:
“If the investigation had been half as good as the preparation of the State Counsel, the mystery could have been unravelled.”
LEGAL PRINCIPLES REAFFIRMED
-
Suspicion cannot replace proof.
-
Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain.
-
Each circumstance must:
-
Be proved,
-
Be consistent only with guilt,
-
Exclude every other hypothesis.
-
-
Section 8 conduct evidence is corroborative, not substantive.
-
Section 27 requires custody.
-
DNA alone cannot prove guilt without linkage evidence.
-
Benefit of doubt must go to accused.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Where circumstantial evidence consists only of (i) doubtful last seen theory, (ii) recovery not satisfying Section 27 requirements, and (iii) DNA establishing death but not linking accused to homicide, the chain of circumstances remains incomplete. Conviction cannot be sustained and accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
FINAL ORDER
-
Conviction set aside.
-
Appeal allowed.
-
Accused to be released forthwith (if not required in any other case).
SIGNIFICANCE
This judgment is important for:
-
Clarifying scope of Section 27 custody requirement.
-
Distinguishing Section 8 conduct from Section 27 discovery.
-
Limiting overreliance on DNA evidence in absence of connecting facts.
-
Reinforcing strict standards in circumstantial evidence cases.
-
Reiterating burden of prosecution despite Section 106.
