Rohit Jangde Supreme Court Judgment (2026 INSC 162): Section 27 Evidence Act and Circumstantial Evidence Explained

Case Summary

• Case name: Rohit Jangde v. The State of Chhattisgarh

• Citation: 2026 INSC 162; Criminal Appeal No.689 of 2026 [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5624 of 2024]

• Date of judgment: 17 February 2026

• Bench: Honourable Justice K. Vinod Chandran (authoring) and Honourable Justice Sanjay Kumar

• Advocates: Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Senior Counsel for the accused; Ms. Ankita Sharma, Advocate-on-Record for the State; learned Government Advocate assisting

• Acts and sections considered: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27, Section 8, Section 106; references to Sections 24–26 (for context)

• Primary legal issues: admissibility and effect of information leading to recovery (Section 27), scope of Section 8 as corroborative evidence, proof by circumstantial evidence, burden under Section 106

• Cited authorities: Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra (1969) 2 SCC 872; Durlav Namasudra v. Emperor (1931 Cal); Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 5 SCC 509; State of A.P. v. Gangula Satya Murthy (1997) 1 SCC 272; Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay (1954) 2 SCC 516

Introduction

The Bench, led by Honourable Justice K. Vinod Chandran, allowed the appeal of Rohit Jangde and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. The decision is instructive on two interrelated themes: (a) the evidentiary contours of information given by an accused that leads to discovery (Section 27 Indian Evidence Act), and (b) the limits of circumstantial and scientific evidence where the investigative process is demonstrably flawed. The judgment is a salutary reminder that careful policing and fastidious adherence to procedure are as important to the administration of criminal justice as the scientific techniques on which prosecutors increasingly rely.

Core findings and reasoning

At the centre of the appeal was a tragic fact: a six-year-old child was found to be dead (vertebrae and teeth recovered from a canal matched the DNA profile of the biological parents). Notwithstanding this incontrovertible fact of death, the Court scrutinised whether the chain of circumstances produced by the prosecution excluded every other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The conviction at trial rested on three strands: (i) a last-seen-together account by a neighbour; (ii) recoveries effected pursuant to information said to have been supplied by the accused; and (iii) DNA evidence matching some of the bone fragments to the child’s parents.

The Bench subjected each strand to forensic examination. First, the „last seen together" theory was dismantled because contemporaneous records and witness testimony produced material inconsistencies. The chronology of alleged assault, arrest and the date of disappearance did not sit comfortably with the neighbour’s account; indeed interpolation in police papers and delay in lodging a missing report cast grave doubt on the reliability of the „last seen" evidence.

Second, the Court analysed the admissibility of the accused’s statement that led to the recovery. Section 27 permits admissibility of that portion of information which leads to the discovery of a fact relevant to the charge, but only if the information is given while the accused is in police custody. The Bench reviewed precedent — from Durlav Namasudra through Dharam Deo Yadav — and confirmed that where an accused is not in formal custody, the statement may nevertheless be admissible in a different evidentiary character under Section 8 (conduct of the accused). Honourable Justice K. Vinod Chandran accepted the recoveries were made at the accused’s instance but concluded that, since the statement was recorded before formal arrest, it could not be treated as Section 27 material; at best it was admissible under Section 8 as corroboration. The Court emphasised the correct legal posture:

The evidence under Section 8 can only offer corroboration and cannot by itself result in a conviction.

Third, and crucially, the DNA evidence — though conclusive of death — was partial and uneven. Only vertebrae and teeth recovered from the canal matched the parents’ DNA; the skull and the remains recovered from the field did not match. There was also an unexplained failure to identify the green saree found with the bones to the mother, and arguably deficient proof that the recovered remains represented a single continuous corpus delicti. The absence of a specified time of death and the procedural lapses (including the cloudy arrest chronology and delay in registration of missing complaint) undermined the prosecution’s attempt to knit these facts into a single, unassailable chain.

Doctrine of circumstantial evidence and benefit of doubt

The judgment reiterates an established principle: a chain of circumstantial evidence must exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. Even compelling scientific proof of death will not suffice where the link to the accused rests on weak corroboration and investigative gaps. The Court therefore afforded the accused the benefit of reasonable doubt. The salutary line:

A botched investigation leaves many questions unanswered

encapsulates the Court’s ethos — robust forensics cannot cure fundamental procedural infirmities.

Practical implications for investigators and prosecutors

Several practical lessons flow from the decision for law enforcement and prosecution:

• Maintain unimpeachable contemporaneous records: interpolation and inconsistent arrest memos proved fatal to the prosecution narrative here.

• Custodial status must be clearly established before relying on confession-led recoveries under Section 27. Where formal arrest has not occurred, consider building the evidentiary value of any statement under Section 8, but do not treat it as a substitute for Section 27 admissibility.

• Forensic linkage must be comprehensive: partial DNA matching is powerful but requires corroborative contextual proof (identification of clothing, chain of custody, stratified recovery notes) to fix time and connect accused to corpus delicti.

• Prompt registration of missing persons complaints and systematic follow-up is indispensable; delays risk eroding the last-seen evidence and create doubts about alternative hypotheses.

Observations for trial courts and appellate scrutiny

The judgment underscores appellate rigour when circumstantial evidence is the fulcrum of conviction. Trial courts must evaluate whether each link is dependable and whether the cumulative chain is exclusive of innocent explanations. Appellate courts, while mindful of deference to the fact-finding tribunal, will and must intervene where procedural confusion or evidential lacunae render the conviction unsafe.

Highlighted quotes

A botched investigation leaves many questions unanswered and in the present case, the murder of a six-year-old girl went unpunished and her stepfather was incarcerated on mere conjectures.

The evidence under Section 8 can only offer corroboration and cannot by itself result in a conviction.

We are hence unable to uphold the conviction of the accused, and he has to be necessarily given the benefit of doubt.

Conclusion

Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh is an important corrective judgment that balances scientific proof with procedural integrity. It does not minimise the tragedy of the victim’s death; rather, it enforces the exacting standards required before the criminal sanction of conviction is imposed. For prosecutors and investigators, the ruling is an admonition: the meticulousness demanded of forensic science must be matched by procedural discipline in investigation, recording and custody practices. For courts, it is a reminder of the continuing vitality of the rule that circumstantial proof must exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt.

Extracts from the Judgment

Leave granted.

A botched investigation leaves many questions unanswered and in the present case, the murder of a six-year-old girl went unpunished and her stepfather was incarcerated on mere conjectures. The impugned judgment of the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused, the stepfather, on three circumstances. One, the last seen together theory propounded through a neighbour. Then, the ashes and the bony remnants from the charred remains of the child, having been recovered on the information supplied by the accused. And last, the skull and teeth recovered from a canal having tallied with the sample DNA profile of the biological parents of the girl child, establishing death unequivocally.

The High Court also emphasized the aspect of no explanation having been offered by the accused regarding his knowledge of the location from which the bony remnants of the deceased were recovered; an incriminating circumstance under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Whether these factors would form a complete chain of circumstances leading only to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused without leaving room for any other hypothesis, is the question arising herein. We have heard Dr. Rajesh Pandey, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused and Ms. Ankita Sharma, Advocate-on-Record, appearing for the State. We cannot but appreciate the Government Advocate for undertaking the exercise of preparing, for our perusal, a paper-book containing the entire records, both the vernacular and the translation.

The hearing on the earlier occasion also raised serious questions as to the custody of the accused, prior to the arrest in the present crime, which persuaded us to pass an order on 14.11.2025, directing the State to produce proof, if any, of the accused having been taken into custody and imprisoned between 05.10.2025 to 10.10.2025. An additional affidavit dated 08.12.2025, filed by the State in compliance of our order, producing an arrest/Court surrender memo adds to the confusion, making the truth regarding the crime, further elusive. On facts suffice it to notice that the accused was living with his two wives and three children. One of the children was born to the accused from his first wife and the two children of his second wife (PW7) were from her previous marriage with PW17.

On 05.10.2018, a quarrel broke out between the accused and PW7, in which PW7 was physically assaulted. This prompted her to leave her marital home and proceed to the home of her parents. PW7 was admitted to a hospital and on her request, her mother PW2 went to her daughter’s marital home to pick up the grandchildren. She was, however, informed by the first wife of the accused that the accused had taken the younger child. There was no attempt to find out the missing child and a missing complaint was registered on 11.10.2018 at 13.20 hrs at Sahaspur Lohara Police Station in District Kabirdhan. Later, allegedly on the confession statement of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, on 13.10.2018, the accused is said to have led the police party to a field from where some burnt bones and ashes were recovered and from a nearby canal a skull and some bones, covered in a green saree were recovered.