Child Rape-Murder: SC Acquits as Recovered Bones Were Male

Supreme Court Acquits Man in Child Rape-Murder Case: Recovered Bones Were Male, Last-Seen Evidence Unproved

The Supreme Court set aside the life sentence of a man convicted of raping and murdering his young niece in Sikkim in 2013, holding that the chain of circumstances was broken at several points. No witness saw him take the child, the recovery spot was open to passers-by, the bones recovered were of male origin, the forensic tests were inconclusive, and his Section 313 answers could not fill the gaps.

Key holdings

The last-seen theory is unsafe where no witness saw the accused with the victim and the remains surfaced six months later (para 9).

A Section 27 recovery from a spot ordinarily visible to others must be examined with care (para 9).

Forensic reports that cannot link the recovered remains to the victim cannot be used against the accused (para 9).

Answers under Section 313 CrPC cannot fill gaps in the prosecution's evidence; they only add a link to a chain already complete (paras 9-10).

Brief Facts

The prosecution alleged that on 06.11.2013 the appellant, the child's maternal uncle, took her from home although his mother, the complainant, had refused to let her go; a missing report was lodged on 12.11.2013 (para 2). He was traced in Siliguri in May 2014 and, according to the FIR of 13.05.2014, said he had raped and throttled her (para 2). Bones, teeth and other articles were recovered at his instance on 15.05.2014 (para 9). The Sessions Court convicted him under Sections 376(2)(i), 302 and 201 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to life imprisonment; the High Court of Sikkim affirmed (paras 1-3).

Court's Findings

Applying Hanumant, the Court examined each circumstance separately (paras 7-8). No witness saw the appellant take the child: the grandmother only assumed he had, two other villagers had visited that day, and the head constable and investigating officer admitted no one saw him take her (para 9). With remains found six months later, State of U.P. v. Satish made reliance on the last-seen theory unsafe (para 9). The recovery spot was frequented by fodder collectors and easily visible, so under State of H.P. v. Jeet Singh it called for caution (para 9). The DNA report found the recovered bones to be of human male origin and unrelated to the victim's mother and sister, while the victim was female; the doctor could not say whether the bones and tooth were human (para 9). The FSL could not establish whether the blood on the shawl was human, and the shawl's ownership was unproved (para 9). The appellant had not failed to explain the circumstances put to him under Section 313, and such answers cannot fill gaps in the prosecution case (para 9).

Legal Principle

In a case resting wholly on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be proved and together form a complete chain. Last-seen evidence weakens with a long time gap, recoveries from places ordinarily visible to others need caution, and a Section 313 statement can only add a link to an otherwise complete chain.

Precedents Relied Upon

Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1952 INSC 41
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 7
Test for conviction on circumstantial evidence: the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, and form a chain leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence.
State of U.P. v. Satish 2005 INSC 68
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 9
The last-seen theory applies only where the time gap is so small that the involvement of anyone other than the accused becomes impossible; with a long gap it is hazardous to convict on it without other positive evidence.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh 1999 INSC 104
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 9
For a Section 27 recovery the crucial question is not whether the place was accessible to others but whether it was ordinarily visible to them.

View all precedents (8)

Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan 2013 INSC 313
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 9
A Section 313 statement is not substantive evidence; it cannot fill gaps left by the prosecution witnesses, and an adverse inference arises only if the incriminating material is fully established and unexplained.
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram 2006 INSC 794
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5, 9
An accused's failure to offer a reasonable explanation can only be an additional link in a chain of circumstances already proved; it does not shift the burden of proof.
Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu 2025 INSC 845
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4
Relied on by the appellant on the reliability of the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Naib Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1983 INSC 41
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 5
Relied on by the State in support of the concurrent conviction.
Manik & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 734
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 5
Relied on by the State in support of the concurrent conviction.

Supreme Court Acquits Man in Child Rape-Murder Case: Recovered Bones Were Male, Last-Seen Evidence Unproved

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

Supreme Court Grants Bail in 27 kg Ganja Case, Citing Custody Period, Slow Trial and Article 21

Unexplained Recording of Convenient Witnesses Dents Credibility: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Double Murder

Disputed Overpayment Cannot Be Recovered From Bills Under Other Contracts Without Hearing: Supreme Court