Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a criminal appeal against the High Court's affirmation of the stepfather's conviction for the murder of his six-year-old stepdaughter. The prosecution relied on three circumstances: the last seen together theory through a neighbor, recovery of burnt bones and ashes from a field and a skull and bones from a canal based on the accused's information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and DNA matching of some remains with the biological parents. The High Court also noted the accused's failure to explain the location of remains under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Supreme Court found serious issues with the investigation, including interpolations in arrest documents casting doubt on the arrest date and custody, which undermined the last seen theory. The DNA evidence was partial, with the skull not matching, and the recovery was based on a confession. The Court held that the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain leading only to the guilt of the accused without leaving room for other hypotheses. Applying the principle that not every faulty investigation benefits the accused unless it causes serious prejudice and evidence is insufficient, the Court acquitted the accused due to unreliable evidence and botched investigation.
Headnote
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction of the stepfather for the murder of a six-year-old girl -- The Court held that the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain pointing unequivocally to the guilt of the accused -- The last seen together theory was undermined by doubts regarding the accused's arrest date and custody -- The recovery of remains under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was based on a confession statement, but the investigation was botched with interpolations in arrest documents -- DNA evidence matched the biological parents with some remains, but the skull did not match, and the evidence was insufficient -- The accused's failure to explain the location of remains under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was not decisive due to overall unreliable evidence -- The Court emphasized that every faulty investigation does not benefit the accused unless it causes serious prejudice and evidence is insufficient -- The appeal was allowed, and the accused was acquitted
Issue of Consideration
Whether the circumstances, including the last seen together theory, recovery of remains based on accused's information, and DNA matching, form a complete chain leading only to the guilt of the accused without leaving room for any other hypothesis
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused, and acquitted him
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain leading only to the guilt of the accused without leaving room for any other hypothesis
- Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act
- 1872 imposes a burden on the accused to explain facts within their special knowledge
- Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act
- 1872 deals with information leading to discovery
- Every faulty investigation does not inure to the benefit of the accused unless serious prejudice is caused and evidence is insufficient for a finding of guilt
