Court Sets Aside Conviction Under Sections 376(2)(i), 302 IPC and Sections 4 & 6 POCSO Act; Observes Suspicion Cannot Replace Legal Proof
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has acquitted Santosh Gurung, who was convicted for offences relating to rape, murder and destruction of evidence of a minor girl, after finding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing only towards his guilt.
A Bench of the Supreme Court considered the appeal filed by Santosh Gurung against his conviction under Sections 376(2)(i), 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The conviction recorded by the Sessions Court and affirmed by the High Court of Sikkim was challenged before the Supreme Court.
In its judgment dated 01.10.2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2018, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution evidence did not establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and extended the benefit of doubt to him.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution case, the incident occurred on 06.11.2013. The appellant was the maternal uncle of the victim. The prosecution alleged that on the relevant day, the appellant was asked by his mother to purchase vegetables. The appellant allegedly asked his maternal niece to accompany him, but permission was not granted.
The prosecution further alleged that the appellant nevertheless took the victim from the house. When both the appellant and the victim did not return, a search was conducted. A missing report was lodged on 12.11.2013 at Rongli Police Station. Subsequently, an FIR dated 13.05.2014 was registered after the appellant was traced at Siliguri. As per the prosecution case, while being brought back from Siliguri to Rongli, the appellant allegedly stated that he had raped the victim and thereafter throttled her to death on 06.11.2013. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed and the appellant was tried before the Sessions Court. Pasted markdown
Conviction by Sessions Court and High Court
The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and relied upon various circumstances to establish the guilt of the appellant. The defence of the appellant was one of denial. The Sessions Court, by judgment dated 20.04.2016, convicted the appellant and sentenced him accordingly. The appellant challenged the conviction before the High Court of Sikkim under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and affirmed the conviction recorded by the Sessions Court. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before Supreme Court
Appellant’s Submissions
The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that the conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were insufficient to establish guilt. The appellant contended that:
- The alleged last seen theory was doubtful;
- The witnesses were not certain about the appellant being last seen with the victim;
- The recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was unreliable;
- The recovered articles were not connected with the victim;
- The DNA report and FSL report did not support the prosecution case.
It was argued that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and therefore the conviction could not be sustained.
State’s Submissions
The State of Sikkim supported the judgments of conviction. The State argued that in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution was justified in relying upon circumstantial evidence. It was submitted that the circumstances established by the prosecution pointed towards the involvement of the appellant. The State also relied upon the appellant’s statement under Section 313 CrPC and argued that the appellant failed to provide proper explanation regarding circumstances appearing against him.
Supreme Court Examines Circumstantial Evidence
The Supreme Court observed that the conviction in the present case was based on circumstantial evidence. The Court reiterated the settled principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, there is always a possibility that suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The Court referred to the principles laid down in Hanumant vs State of Madhya Pradesh, observing that:
- Circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must first be fully established;
- The established circumstances must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused;
- The chain of evidence must be complete and must exclude every reasonable possibility consistent with innocence.
The Court thereafter examined each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution.
1. Last Seen Theory Found Doubtful
The prosecution relied upon the circumstance that the appellant was last seen with the victim. The Supreme Court examined the statements of the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution. The Court noted that PW2, the grandmother of the victim, was not certain whether the appellant and the victim had left the house together or separately. The witness stated that after she started performing household work, she did not notice whether the appellant and victim went together.
The Court found that this evidence did not conclusively establish that the appellant was last seen with the victim.
The Court also considered the evidence of other witnesses. PW1 admitted that there was no witness who had seen the appellant taking the victim from the complainant’s house. PW3 also could not confirm whether the victim had gone with the appellant. The Investigating Officer similarly admitted that no person had seen the accused taking away the victim. The Supreme Court observed that there was no specific evidence establishing that the appellant had taken the victim from the house or was last seen with her after which she went missing.
Long Gap Created Doubt in Last Seen Theory
The Supreme Court further noted that the alleged last seen circumstance related to 06.11.2013, whereas recovery of bones and teeth was claimed after several months. The Court referred to the principle that the last seen theory becomes significant where the time gap between the accused being seen with the victim and discovery of death is so small that involvement of any other person becomes impossible.
However, where there is a long gap and possibility of other persons intervening exists, reliance on last seen theory becomes unsafe. The Court referred to the judgment in State of U.P. vs Satish while discussing this principle.
2. Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Examined
The prosecution also relied upon recovery of articles allegedly made at the instance of the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution claimed that the appellant disclosed the place where articles were kept and recovery was made. However, the Supreme Court examined the evidence regarding the place of recovery. The Court noted that witnesses admitted that the place from where articles were recovered was accessible to people.
The area was used by cattle herders and persons collecting fodder. The spot was not a thick jungle and could be easily seen by persons visiting the area. The Court observed that recovery from a place accessible to others does not automatically become inadmissible, but such recovery must be examined carefully. The Court referred to the principles laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh vs Jeet Singh regarding recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
3. DNA Evidence Did Not Support Prosecution Case
The Supreme Court also examined the DNA evidence relied upon by the prosecution. The Court noted that two pieces of bone recovered during investigation were found to be of human male origin. The DNA report stated that the bone samples were not biologically related to the blood samples of the victim’s mother and sister. The report also stated that DNA analysis could not be completed regarding certain hair samples. The Court observed that the prosecution had failed to establish that the recovered bones and teeth actually belonged to the victim.
The DNA report, rather than supporting the prosecution, created doubt because the bone samples were of male origin whereas the victim was female. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the DNA report could not be relied upon as a circumstance against the appellant.
4. FSL Report Also Did Not Support Prosecution
The Court examined the report of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory. The analyst had stated that it could not be determined whether the dried blood found on the brown shawl was human blood or animal blood. The report also could not establish the age of hair samples and did not provide evidence connecting the articles with the crime. The Supreme Court held that the FSL report did not advance the prosecution case.
5. Brown Shawl Circumstance Considered Doubtful
The prosecution alleged that the appellant had taken a brown shawl from his mother’s house and used it while committing the offence. However, the Supreme Court found doubts regarding this circumstance.
The victim’s grandmother could not identify the shawl during evidence.
The Investigating Officer also admitted that the shawl did not belong to the appellant’s mother.
Further, the FSL report could not establish the origin or blood group of the material found on the shawl.
The Court held that this circumstance also created doubt regarding the prosecution version.
6. Statement Under Section 313 CrPC Could Not Fill Gaps
The prosecution also relied upon the appellant’s statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC. The Supreme Court explained that a statement under Section 313 CrPC gives an opportunity to the accused to explain circumstances appearing against him. However, such statement cannot replace prosecution evidence. The Court observed that if the prosecution evidence itself is insufficient, the accused’s statement cannot be used to fill gaps in the prosecution case.
Supreme Court Holds Prosecution Failed to Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt
After examining all circumstances together, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant. The Court found:
- The last seen theory was doubtful;
- Recovery required caution as it was from a place visible to others;
- DNA evidence did not connect the recovered material with the victim;
- FSL evidence did not support the prosecution;
- The brown shawl circumstance was doubtful;
- Section 313 statement could not complete the chain of circumstances.
The Court observed that the chain of circumstances was not complete and did not point only towards the guilt of the appellant. While acknowledging that the victim had met an unfortunate end, the Court held that conviction could not be sustained merely on suspicion.
Final Order: Conviction Set Aside, Appellant Acquitted
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The judgments of the Sessions Court in S.T. (POCSO) Case No. 20 of 2014 and the High Court of Sikkim in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2016 were set aside. The appellant was acquitted of the offences for which he had been convicted. The Court directed that he be released forthwith if he was not required in any other case.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court judgment in Santosh Gurung vs State of Sikkim reiterates the fundamental principle that criminal conviction, particularly in cases based on circumstantial evidence, requires a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. The Court did not base its decision on sympathy or doubt alone but examined each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution and found significant gaps in the evidence.
The judgment reinforces that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof. When circumstances do not conclusively establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. By setting aside the conviction and directing acquittal, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the requirement that criminal liability must be established through reliable and legally sufficient evidence.
LawDaily.org | Legal News & Supreme Court Updates