The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction and life imprisonment of a man accused of raping and murdering his minor niece, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence linking him to the offences.

The bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar found serious deficiencies in the prosecution’s last-seen theory, recovery evidence and forensic findings. Crucially, DNA analysis showed that the recovered bone fragments were of human male origin, whereas the missing child was female.

Buy Now: Supreme Court Judgments E-Magazine – 5 Month Combo (2026) (1st February – 30th June 2026)

The Court also reiterated that an accused’s answers or silence during examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot fill gaps in the prosecution’s evidence or shift the burden of proving guilt onto the accused.

The prosecution alleged that on November 6, 2013, the accused was asked by his mother to purchase vegetables. He wanted his minor niece to accompany him, but his mother refused permission. According to the prosecution, he nevertheless took the child away from the house.

When the child could not be found, her grandmother searched for her and informed the child’s mother. A missing report was lodged at Rongli Police Station on November 12, 2013, giving details of both the child and her maternal uncle.

The accused was subsequently traced in Siliguri. According to the FIR registered on May 13, 2014, he allegedly stated while being brought back to Rongli that he had raped the child and throttled her to death on the day she disappeared.

Following investigation, he was tried for offences under Sections 376(2)(i), 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The Sessions Court convicted him on April 20, 2016, and imposed life imprisonment. The Sikkim High Court upheld the conviction, prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court.

The defence argued that the prosecution had failed to establish circumstances sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It questioned whether any witness had actually seen the accused leave with the child and pointed to the interval between the missing report and registration of the FIR.

The defence also challenged the recovery of articles under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, contending that the recovered objects had not been reliably connected to the child. It submitted that the recovery site was frequented by members of the public and that the forensic and DNA reports did not support the prosecution’s allegations.

The State defended the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court. It argued that the circumstances collectively established the accused’s involvement and that his failure to adequately explain them during his Section 313 examination strengthened the prosecution’s case.

The Supreme Court found that the witnesses were uncertain whether the accused and the child had left the house together.

The child’s grandmother acknowledged that after she began attending to household chores, she did not notice whether they departed together or separately. A police witness also admitted that no witness had seen the accused taking the child from the house.

The evidence further referred to two villagers having visited the house. The child’s mother could not say whether her daughter had gone with those persons. These uncertainties prevented the Court from accepting that the accused alone had been reliably established as the person last seen with the child.

The Court also considered the substantial interval between the child’s disappearance on November 6, 2013, and the recovery of suspected bones and teeth on May 15, 2014. The child’s body had not been traced.

Referring to State of U.P. v. Satish, the bench explained that the last-seen theory assumes significance where the interval between the accused and deceased being seen together and the discovery of death is sufficiently small to exclude another person’s involvement. On the evidence in this case, the Court considered reliance on that circumstance unsafe.

The prosecution relied on articles allegedly recovered at the accused’s instance on May 15, 2014, pursuant to a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

However, witnesses acknowledged that the recovery site was near an old road and a footpath used by cattle herders. People visited the area to collect fodder, graze cattle and repair a nearby water channel. The recovered articles could be easily seen by someone visiting the spot.

The Court clarified, through its reliance on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh, that recovery from a place accessible to the public is not automatically inadmissible. The crucial distinction is whether an object was concealed or ordinarily visible to others.

Since the articles in this case were recovered from a location ordinarily visible to visitors, the Court held that the discovery required cautious assessment.

The DNA report was a major weakness in the prosecution’s case.

Analysis found that two recovered bone pieces were of human male origin and were not biologically related to the blood samples taken from the child’s mother and sister. The report also stated that autosomal STR analysis could not be performed on the recovered bunch of black hair.

The medical witness could not confirm whether certain other suspected bones were human or animal bones. He was also unable to confirm whether a recovered tooth was human or whether an object described as a nail was actually a nail or a piece of wood.

The investigating officer similarly could not say whether the recovered bones and teeth belonged to the child.

The Supreme Court therefore held that the prosecution had failed to establish that the recovered remains were those of the victim. The DNA report could not be treated as an incriminating circumstance against the accused.

The forensic examination did not establish whether dried blood found on a recovered brown shawl was human or animal blood. The analyst could not determine the age of the human scalp hair recovered, and no human remains were detected in the soil sample.

The prosecution’s account concerning the shawl was also doubtful. The evidence did not reliably establish its ownership or connect it to the alleged incident, and the investigating officer admitted that no witness had seen the accused going to the child’s house to obtain it.

Taken together, these findings failed to provide the forensic support necessary to strengthen the prosecution’s chain of circumstances.

The Court rejected the State’s argument that the accused’s Section 313 responses supplied an additional incriminating link.

The accused admitted that he had initially wanted to take the child with him, but maintained that he ultimately went to the shop alone. He denied involvement and claimed false implication.

After examining his entire statement, the bench found no failure to explain an established incriminating circumstance.

Relying on Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reiterated that a Section 313 statement gives an accused an opportunity to explain the material appearing against him. It is not substantive evidence and cannot replace proof that the prosecution must produce.

An inadequate explanation may operate as an additional link only where the relevant incriminating circumstances have been established. It cannot repair an otherwise incomplete prosecution case.

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution evidence fell substantially short of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It found that both the Sessions Court and the High Court had failed to adequately account for the material weaknesses in the evidence.

Although the Court acknowledged the child’s unfortunate fate, it held that the accused could not be convicted in circumstances that failed to establish his involvement.

The bench consequently quashed the conviction, acquitted him of the offences for which he had been tried and convicted, and ordered his immediate release unless required in another case.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Income Tax Reopening Notice Issued After Limitation Deadline Invalid: Calcutta High Court