Back
Statement Cannot Fill Gaps in Prosecution Case: Supreme Court Acquits Santosh Gurung
In a significant ruling on , the has acquitted Santosh Gurung, who was previously convicted for the rape and murder of his six-year-old maternal niece. A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the life sentence imposed by the and upheld by the , holding that the prosecution's was "woefully short" and that the accused's statement under of Criminal Procedure could not be used to fill gaps left by the prosecution.
Background of the Case
The prosecution's case began on , when the appellant's mother asked him to buy vegetables. The appellant wanted to take his niece along, but his mother refused. Nevertheless, he allegedly took the child from the house. When neither returned, a missing report was lodged on . The appellant was traced in Siliguri much later, and on , an FIR was registered alleging that he had raped and throttled the victim to death on the same day she went missing.
The trial court convicted him under , as well as under . The affirmed the conviction on appeal, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments from Both Sides
Appellant's Counsel (): Argued that the conviction was based solely on that failed to form a complete chain. The "last seen" evidence was weak—witnesses were unsure if the appellant and victim left together. The recovery under was from a place frequented by cattle herders, making it unreliable. The DNA report showed the bones were of male origin, while the victim was female, and the FSL report was inconclusive. The brown shawl allegedly used by the appellant could not be identified by the victim's grandmother. Relying on , counsel submitted that the prosecution had not proved its case .
Respondent's Counsel (): Supported the , arguing that the —last seen, recovery, DNA, and FSL reports—pointed only to the appellant. He contended that the appellant failed to explain in his Section 313 statement, which should be taken as an additional link. Reliance was placed on , , and .
Legal Analysis: Why the Broke
The Supreme Court meticulously examined each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution.
: The court found that prosecution witnesses, including the victim's grandmother (PW2), were not certain that the appellant and victim left together. PW2 admitted she did not notice whether they went together or separately. PW1 (Head Constable) stated there was no witness who saw the appellant taking the victim. The Investigating Officer (PW16) conceded the same. The court noted the long gap between the alleged last sighting () and the discovery of bones (), citing —the "last seen" theory applies only when the time gap is so small that no other person could have intervened. Here, the gap was over six months.
Recovery Under Section 27: The recovery of clothes and other articles was from a spot that was not a thick jungle and was frequently visited by people collecting fodder. The court cautioned that such recovery must be examined with care, relying on . Since the place was ordinarily visible, the discovery was unreliable.
DNA and FSL Reports: The DNA report (Exhibit-37) concluded that the two bone pieces were of human male origin, while the victim was female. The bones did not match the blood samples of the victim's mother and sister. The FSL report could not determine whether blood on the shawl was human or animal, could not age the hair, and found no human remains in the soil sample. These reports, therefore, did not support the prosecution.
Brown Shawl: The prosecution claimed the appellant used a brown shawl from his mother's house, but the victim's grandmother (PW2) could not identify it. The shawl did not belong to the appellant's mother, and the FSL could not detect its origin.
Statement Under : The appellant admitted wanting to take the victim but stated he went to the shop alone. The court held that his answers did not amount to a . Citing , the court reiterated that an accused's statement under Section 313 cannot be used to fill gaps in the prosecution's case. Only when is fully established and the accused offers no explanation can an be drawn. Since the was itself unproven, the appellant's statement could not serve as an additional link.
Key Observations from the Judgment
"The witnesses examined were not sure as to whether the appellant was last seen with the victim as they had their own doubts in that regard."
"The discovery effected under was from a place that was ordinarily visible to others, thus, requiring such discovery to be considered with caution."
"The DNA report in clear terms refers to the bone extracts being of male origin while the victim was a female. The said bones naturally did not match with the blood samples of the victim's mother and sister."
"When it is found that the relied upon by the prosecution is not complete and that the same does not inspire confidence for its acceptance, the response of the appellant recorded in his statement under cannot be a circumstance against him."
"The guilt of the appellant has not been established . A strong doubt about his involvement in the offence is created in view of the prosecution evidence."
The Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the judgments of the and the , and acquitted Santosh Gurung of all charges. The court directed his immediate release unless required in any other case. The ruling reinforces the principle that in cases, the prosecution must establish a complete chain pointing only to the accused, and that the accused's statement under cannot compensate for deficiencies in the prosecution's evidence.
