Monday, February 23, 2026

Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Chain incomplete — Last seen theory doubtful — Benefit of doubt. (Paras 6–9, 18) Where prosecution relied on (i) last seen theory, (ii) recovery of burnt bone remnants, and (iii) partial DNA match, but serious inconsistencies existed regarding arrest, delay in missing complaint, and time of death — Held, circumstances did not form a complete chain leading only to guilt — Accused entitled to benefit of doubt.

advocatemmmohan

Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Chain incomplete — Last seen theory doubtful — Benefit of doubt.

(Paras 6–9, 18)

Where prosecution relied on (i) last seen theory, (ii) recovery of burnt bone remnants, and (iii) partial DNA match, but serious inconsistencies existed regarding arrest, delay in missing complaint, and time of death — Held, circumstances did not form a complete chain leading only to guilt — Accused entitled to benefit of doubt.

Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 27 — Discovery statement — Custody requirement mandatory — Statement made prior to arrest — Not admissible under S. 27.

(Paras 10–12)

Information leading to discovery must be given by a person “in the custody of police”. Where recovery preceded formal arrest and no custodial restraint established, S. 27 not attracted.

Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 8 — Conduct — Recovery at instance of accused though outside S. 27 — Admissible as conduct — Weak piece of evidence.

(Paras 14–15, 18)

Even if not admissible under S. 27, accused leading police to place of recovery admissible as conduct under S. 8. However, such conduct alone insufficient to sustain conviction.

Evidence Act — S. 106 — Burden of explanation — Cannot relieve prosecution of primary burden.

(Para 2, 18)

Failure to explain knowledge of location of bones cannot substitute proof of complete chain of circumstances.

Criminal Trial — Faulty investigation — Effect — Does not automatically benefit accused unless prejudice shown.

(Para 6)

Every defective investigation does not vitiate trial; however, where deficiencies create reasonable doubt, conviction cannot stand.

Forensic Evidence — DNA profiling — Partial match — Establishes death but not guilt.

(Paras 16–18)

DNA of vertebrae and teeth matched biological parents; skull and other bones did not. Establishes identity of remains but not authorship of crime.

FACTUAL MATRIX

Six-year-old girl allegedly murdered.
Accused: stepfather.
Prosecution case based entirely on circumstantial evidence:
1. Last seen together (PW8 neighbour).
2. Recovery of ashes and bones allegedly under S. 27.
3. DNA match between bone fragments and biological parents.

High Court affirmed conviction relying on these circumstances and S. 106 inference.

KEY FINDINGS

I. Last Seen Theory — Discredited

Alleged disappearance on 05/06.10.2018.
Accused arrested in assault case on 06.10.2018 and released 08.10.2018.
Missing complaint lodged only on 11.10.2018.
FIR mentioned child missing at 9 PM on 06.10.2018 — after arrest.
Interpolation in arrest memo raised serious doubt.

Court held last seen theory “fails miserably.”

II. Section 27 Recovery — Not Applicable

Memorandum drawn at 10:30 AM, 13.10.2018.
Arrest memo shows arrest at 22:00 hrs same day.
Accused not in police custody at time of statement.

Relied on:

Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra
Durlav Namasudra v. Emperor
Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay

Held:

Not admissible under S. 27.
However, admissible as conduct under S. 8 — only a weak corroborative link.

III. DNA Evidence — Limited Value

Vertebrae and teeth matched parental DNA.
Skull and other bones did not match.
Saree wrapping not identified in court.

Court held:

Death established.
Guilt not established.

IV. Section 313 Compliance

DNA matching put to accused (Q. 157–159).
Accused gave blanket denial.
No procedural violation.

LEGAL POSITION REAFFIRMED

Custody under S. 27 includes surveillance/restraint, but must exist factually.
Conduct evidence (S. 8) cannot independently sustain conviction.
Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof.
Complete chain of circumstances mandatory in circumstantial evidence cases.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Recovery outside custodial setting falls outside S. 27.
Conduct evidence under S. 8 is corroborative only.
Partial DNA match proves identity of remains, not culpability.
Delay in FIR and doubtful arrest record create reasonable doubt.
Chain of circumstances incomplete → benefit of doubt.

FINAL ORDER

Appeal allowed.
Conviction set aside.
Accused directed to be released forthwith (if not required in any other case).

Court recorded appreciation for both State Counsel’s preparation and defence’s effective probing of investigative lapses.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN