Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 174

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Rohit Jangde – Appellant
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2026 [@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5624 of 2024]
Decided On : 17-02-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): 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 Respondent(s): Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR Mr. Arjun D. Singh, Adv. Ms. Ishika Neogi, Adv. Mr. Divya Tripathi, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTMurder – Evidence under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can only offer corroboration and cannot by itself result in conviction.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27 and 8 – Murder of step-daughter – Conviction and sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen together theory – What has been established beyond doubt is only death of child whose vertebrae and teeth, recovered from a canal, matched with DNA profiles obtained from sample taken from biological parents – Knowledge of accused, which led to detection of 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 – Evidence under Section 8 can only offer corroboration and cannot by itself result in a conviction – Suspicion regarding earlier arrest and incarceration of accused also would pose serious difficulty in finding hypothesis of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt – Long gap when there was no complaint made about missing child and factum of none having questioned accused, despite family and police having been told that she went with accused tilts scales in favour of accused – Since corpus delicti was not recovered, there is no time of death specified – Order of Trial Court convicting accused and that of High Court affirming the same are set aside. (Paras 18 and 19)

Facts of the case:
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. The impugned judgment of the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused, the stepfather, on three circumstances. One, last seen together theory propounded through a neighbour. Then, ashes and the bony remnants from the charred remains of the child, having been recovered on the information supplied by the accused. And last, the skull and teeth recovered from a canal having tallied with the sample DNA profile of the biological parents of the girl child, establishing death unequivocally. High Court also emphasized the aspect of no explanation having been offered by the accused regarding his knowledge of the location from which the bony remnants of the deceased were recovered; an incriminating circumstance under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Whether these factors would form a complete chain of circumstances leading only to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused without leaving room for any other hypothesis, is the question arising herein.

Findings of Court:
If investigation had been half as good as preparation of State Counsel, shroud of mystery over the poor child’s disappearance and death, could have been unravelled. We also appreciate efforts put in by Senior Counsel for appellant, in probing State to effectively bring forth inept handling of investigation.

Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Cross-Examination Questions for PW2 (Mother-in-law of accused)

You went to the accused's house with police after the quarrel on 05.10.2018 to fetch the grandchildren, correct? (!) (!) (!)
When you arrived at the house, the first wife told you the accused had taken the younger child, but you made no immediate missing report about the child that day, isn't it? (!) (!) (!)
Despite police being present and learning the child went with the accused on 05.10.2018, no inquiries were made about the child's whereabouts then, were they? (!) (!)
You did not mention any specific date in your chief examination about going to the house or learning about the child, correct? (!)
You never asked about the location of your elder grandchild who was also staying with the accused, did you? (!)

Cross-Examination Questions for PW7 (Second wife/biological mother)

After the quarrel and your hospitalization on 05.10.2018, you did not lodge any missing complaint about your daughter until 11.10.2018, despite knowing she went with the accused, right? (!) (!)
The green saree in which the bones were found was yours, but you were never shown it or asked to identify it during investigation, were you? (!)

Cross-Examination Questions for PW8 (Neighbor, last seen witness)

You only told police about seeing the accused take the child on a motorbike seven days after 05.10.2018, by which time the family and police already knew from the first wife that the child went with accused, correct? (!) (!)
The time you claim to have seen the accused with the child was before his arrest on 06.10.2018, but no one pursued this immediately despite family knowledge, isn't it? (!)

Cross-Examination Questions for PW10 (Grandfather)

You accompanied PW2 to the accused's house after the quarrel, and the first wife said accused took the younger child, but no missing report was filed that day, true? (!) (!)
Your chief examination also lacks any specific date for this visit, doesn't it? (!)
You never mentioned the elder child's whereabouts despite both staying with accused, correct? (!)

Cross-Examination Questions for PW15 (Investigating Officer)

The accused was arrested in the prior assault FIR on 06.10.2018 and released on 08.10.2018, as per your own deposition, right? (!) (!)
Despite arrest on 06.10.2018 and family/police knowing child went with accused on 05.10.2018, no missing inquiries were made until 11.10.2018, were they? (!)
The Section 27 memorandum (Ex.P4) was prepared at 10.30 AM on 13.10.2018, recoveries followed, but arrest memo (Ex.P27) shows arrest only at 22.00 hrs on 13.10.2018, so accused was not in custody when statement was given, correct? (!) (!)
The FIR for missing child (11.10.2018) states child missing at 9 PM on 06.10.2018, after accused's arrest that day, which contradicts the last seen theory of 05.10.2018, doesn't it? (!)
Interpolation in the prior assault FIR dates (Column 2 changed from 05.10.2018 12.40 to 06/08.10.2018 13.40) was noticed, affecting timeline of accused's custody, true? (!)

Cross-Examination Questions for PW3, PW4, PW5 (Fishermen)

You recovered skull, 8 teeth, and bone from canal wrapped in green saree at 13.00 on 13.10.2018, but these showed burning evidence without any link to accused except his prior disclosure, correct? (!)

Cross-Examination Questions for PW1 (Doctor) and PW18 (Scientific Officer)

FSL report (Annexure P21A) shows DNA match only for vertebrae and teeth from canal with parents' samples; skull and field bones did not match, right? (!) (!)
No full corpus delicti was recovered, and no time of death could be determined from remains, isn't it? (!)

General Cross-Examination Questions (Applicable to Prosecution Witnesses on Circumstances)

No one questioned accused about child's whereabouts after his release on 08.10.2018 until FIR on 11.10.2018, despite family knowledge he took her, true? (!) (!)
Accused accompanied PW7 to lodge missing FIR on 11.10.2018 without being suspected then, correct? (!)

Table of Content
1. circumstantial evidence must establish guilt. (Para 2 , 4 , 5)
2. confusion regarding arrest affects prosecution's case. (Para 3 , 6 , 8 , 10)
3. investigation lapses raise doubts in last seen theory. (Para 7 , 9)
4. section 27 requires custody for admissibility. (Para 11 , 16)
5. understanding of reasonable doubt in evidence. (Para 14 , 15)
6. guilt beyond reasonable doubt is necessary. (Para 18)
7. case concluded with acquittal and appreciation for advocacy. (Para 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Leave granted.

2. 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. The impugned judgment of the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused, the stepfather, on three circumstances. One, the last seen together theory propounded through a neighbour. Then, the ashes and the bony remnants from the charred remains of the child, having been recovered on the information supplied by the accused. And last, the skull and teeth recovered from a canal having tallied with the sample DNA profile of the biological parents of the girl child, establishing death unequivocally. The High Court also emphasized the aspect of no explanation having been offered by the accused regarding his knowledge of the location from which the bony remnants of the deceased were recovered; an incriminating circumstance under Section 106 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872. Whether these factors would form a complete chain of circumstances leading only to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused without leaving room for any other hypothesis, is the question arising herein.

3. We have heard Dr. Rajesh Pandey, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused and Ms. Ankita Sharma, Advocate-on-Record, appearing for the State. We cannot but appreciate the Government Advocate for undertaking the exercise of preparing, for our perusal, a paper-book containing the entire records, both the vernacular and the translation. The hearing on the earlier occasion also raised serious questions as to the custody of the accused, prior to the arrest in the present crime, which persuaded us to pass an order on 14.11.2025, directing the State to produce proof, if any, of the accused having been taken into custody and imprisoned between 05.10.2025 to 10.10.2025. An additional affidavit dated 08.12.2025, filed by the State in compliance of our order, producing an arrest/Court surrender memo adds to the confusion, making the truth regarding the crime, further elusive.

4. On facts suffice it to notice that the accused was living with his two wives and three children. One of the children was born to the accused from his first wife and the two children of his second wife (PW7) were from her previous marriage with PW17. On 05.10.2018, a quarrel broke out between the accused and PW7, in which PW7 was physically assaulted. This prompted her to leave her marital home and proceed to the home of her parents. PW7 was admitted to a hospital and on her request, her mother PW2 went to her daughter’s marital home to pick up the grandchildren. She was, however, informed by the first wife of the accused that the accused had taken the younger child. There was no attempt to find out the missing child and a missing complaint was registered on 11.10.2018 at 13.20 hrs at Sahaspur Lohara Police Station in District Kabirdhan.

Later, allegedly on the confession statement of the accused under Section 27 of the EVIDENCE ACT , on 13.10.2018, the accused is said to have led the police party to a field from where some burnt bones and ashes were recovered and from a nearby canal a skull and some bones, covered in a green saree were recovered.

5. PW1, the doctor before whom the bone remnants were produced, suggested a chemical examination of the remains, which was carried out under the supervision of PW18, the Senior Scientific Officer. The FSL report m