In a courtroom heavy with silence, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday set aside the conviction of a man accused of murdering his six-year-old stepdaughter, holding that a flawed investigation and weak circumstantial evidence could not sustain a life sentence.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal filed by Rohit Jangde, observing that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Clears Way for Police Recruit, Says Minor, Quashed FIR Can’t Block Appointment
“The suspicion regarding the earlier arrest and incarceration of the accused also would pose serious difficulty in finding a hypothesis of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt,” the Bench noted.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the disappearance of a six-year-old girl in Chhattisgarh in October 2018. According to the prosecution, the child was last seen with her stepfather after a domestic quarrel between him and her mother.
Several days later, burnt bones and ashes were allegedly recovered from a field, and a skull and teeth were found in a nearby canal. The police claimed the recoveries were made based on information provided by the accused.
A forensic test later matched the DNA from certain bone fragments with samples taken from the child’s biological parents. Relying on this and the “last seen together” theory, the trial court convicted the accused. The High Court upheld the conviction.
Challenging the verdict, the accused approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition.
The Bench carefully reviewed the prosecution’s three main pillars:
- The last seen theory
- Recovery of remains under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
- DNA matching
Last Seen Theory Fails
The prosecution argued that a neighbour had seen the accused taking the child on a motorcycle. But the Court found troubling gaps.
The accused was shown to have been arrested in connection with a domestic assault around the same time the child went missing. The records contained visible alterations in the arrest memo, creating doubt about the exact date and time of custody.
More importantly, the missing complaint was lodged days later - even though family members and police were aware that the child had left with the accused.
“This assumes relevance especially since the incident of assault was reported to the police,” the Bench observed, pointing out that no immediate search or complaint followed.
The Court concluded that the last seen theory “fails miserably” in light of these inconsistencies.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clears Siddhartha Reddy in Actress Pratyusha Death Case, Says No Proof of Abetment
Recovery Not Covered Under Section 27
The police had recorded a statement from the accused on October 13, 2018, leading to the recovery of bone fragments. However, the Court noticed a crucial legal flaw - the accused was not in police custody at the time the statement was recorded.
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act allows certain statements made in custody to be used if they lead to discovery of evidence. But here, the arrest memo showed that formal arrest took place later that night.
Citing earlier rulings, including Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay, the Court clarified that while such recovery could not be admitted under Section 27, it might still be considered as “conduct” under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
But the judges were clear: such conduct evidence is a weak link. It can support other evidence but cannot, by itself, prove guilt.
DNA Evidence Not Conclusive
The forensic report confirmed that the DNA from vertebrae and teeth recovered from the canal matched that of the biological parents. However, the skull and other remains did not match.
The Bench noted that the DNA evidence established the child’s death. But it did not establish that the accused committed the crime.
“What has been established beyond doubt is only the death of the child,” the Court remarked.
The absence of a complete body meant there was no clear determination of the time of death. That gap, combined with the delayed FIR and doubtful custody records, weakened the prosecution’s case.
Court’s Observations on Investigation
The judges did not hide their disappointment with the investigation.
“A botched investigation leaves many questions unanswered,” the judgment began, noting that the real perpetrator might have gone unpunished.
The Court acknowledged the efforts of the State’s counsel but remarked that if the investigation had been half as strong as the arguments presented in court, the mystery surrounding the child’s death might have been resolved.
Read also:- Madras High Court Orders Removal of Shops from Kanyakumari Temple Mandapam, Slams HR&CE
Decision
Finding that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and did not point solely to the accused’s guilt, the Supreme Court granted him the benefit of doubt.
The appeal was allowed. The conviction by the trial court and its affirmation by the High Court were set aside.
The Court directed that the accused be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Case Title: Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2026 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 5624 of 2024)
Decision Date: February 17, 2026
