ROHIT JANGDEversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

                 [2026] 3 S.C.R. 231 : 2026 INSC 162

                              Rohit Jangde
                                    v.
                        The State of Chhattisgarh
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2026)
                               17 February 2026
           [Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was a
       complete chain of circumstances leading only to the hypothesis of the
       guilt of the accused without leaving room for any other hypothesis;
       whether the order of the Trial Court convicting the accused and
       that of the High Court affirming the same ought to be set aside.

                                   Headnotes†
       Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Statement of accused made when
       not in police custody, outside the purview of s.27 – High Court
       affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused, the
       step-father for the murder of his six year-old step-daughter on
       the basis of the last seen together theory; the ashes and the
       bony remnants from the charred remains of the child having
       been recovered on the information supplied by the accused;
       the skull and teeth recovered from a canal having tallied with
       the sample DNA profile of the biological parents of the girl
       child – Interference with:
       Held: Order of the Trial Court convicting the accused and that of
       the High Court affirming the same are set aside – On facts, the
       last seen together theory fails miserably – Recovery allegedly
       made u/s.27 is also fraught with inconsistencies – s.27 speaks
       of information received from a person accused of any offence
       while in the custody of the police leading to a discovery of a fact
       being enabled of proof in the trial – The accused at the time of
       the statement was not in the custody of the police and hence it is
       removed from the ambit of s.27 – What has been established beyond
       doubt is only the death of the child whose vertebrae and teeth,
       recovered from a canal, matched with the DNA profiles obtained
       from the sample taken from the biological parents – The knowledge

* Author
232                                                            [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       of the accused, which led to the detection of the bone remnants
       though not acceptable u/s.27 would all the same be acceptable
       evidence u/s.8, which by itself is a weak piece of evidence – The
       evidence u/s.8 can only offer corroboration and cannot by itself
       result in a conviction – 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
       long gap when there was no complaint made about the missing
       child and the factum of none having questioned the accused,
       despite the family and police having been told that she went with
       the accused tilts the scales in favour of the accused; especially
       since he was released on 08.10.2018, two days before the FIR
       was lodged – Moreover, since the corpus delicti was not recovered,
       there is no time of death specified – Benefit of doubt given to the
       accused – Acquitted. [Paras 10, 12, 18, 19]

       Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.27, 8:
       Held: There is nothing indicated to show that the accused, who had
       accompanied his wife to register the missing complaint was even
       suspected of being responsible for the missing of the child – In any
       event, this does not pose any difficulty insofar as the deposition
       of the I.O, PW 15; that he was led to the field and the canal from
       where the recovery was made, subsequent to which the person
       was arrested, though not admissible u/s.27, all the same can be
       brought u/s.8 – The recovery of the bone remnants having been
       made at the instance of the accused accepted, though at the time
       of his statement, he was not in police custody, which could only
       be a link u/s.8, in the chain of circumstances; but his connection
       with the crime still has to be proved otherwise – The DNA profiles
       matched only with the piece of vertebrae and the teeth recovered
       from the canal, while the skull and those recovered from the field,
       where the body is said to have been burnt, did not match with the
       samples taken from the parents – Also, the bones recovered were
       wrapped in a green saree of PW7, which was not attempted to
       be identified as belonging to her, by confronting the same to the
       witness, while she was in the box.[Paras 14-16]

       Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – ‘custody’ – Meaning:
       Held: Expression ‘custody’ appearing in s.27 does not mean
       formal custody and includes any kind of surveillance, restriction
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                            233

               Rohit Jangde v. The State of Chhattisgarh


     or restraint by the police – Even if there is no formal arrest made,
     if a person is within the ken of surveillance of the police, during
     which his movements are restricted, then it can be regarded as
     custodial surveillance – In the present case, though the recoveries
     as per Exts. P3 & P5 Memos were made, in accordance with
     the confession statement of the accused, Ext. P4 at 10.30 on
     13.10.2018, the Arrest/Court Surrender Memo produced at Ex.P27,
     indicates the arrest of the accused having been made on 13.10.2018
     at 22.00 hrs. [Paras 10, 13]

                              Case Law Cited
     Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra [1970] 2 SCR
     332 : (1969) 2 SCC 872; Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar
     Pradesh [2014] 8 SCR 650 : (2014) 5 SCC 509; State of A.P. v.
     Gangula Satya Murthy [1996] Supp. 8 SCR 808 : (1997) 1 SCC
     272; Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay [1955] 1
     SCR 903 : (1954) 2 SCC 516 – referred to.
     Durlav Namasudra v. Emperor, 1931 SCC Online Cal
     146 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872.

                             List of Keywords
     Botched investigation; Step-father; Murder of step-daughter; Last
     seen together theory; Section 27, Evidence Act, 1872; Ashes and the
     bony remnants; Charred remains; Information supplied by accused;
     Skull and teeth recovered from a canal; Sample DNA profile of
     the biological parents of the girl child; Interpolation; Matching
     of DNA profiles of the bone remnants with the DNA profiles of
     biological parents of deceased child; Missing child; Corpus delicti
     not recovered; No time of death specified; Benefit of doubt; Last
     seen together theory failed; ‘custody’.

                            Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     689 of 2026
     From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2023 of the High Court
     of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in CRA No. 873 of 2021
234                                                            [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


                           Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Sr. Adv., Chandrika Prasad Mishra,
       Ms. Prashasti Singh, Ms. Ayushi Pandey, Utsav Madan, Ms. Swati
       Surbhi.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       Ms. Ankita Sharma, Arjun D. Singh, Ms. Ishika Neogi, Divya Tripathi.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Judgment

       K. Vinod Chandran, J.

       Leave granted.
2.     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.
3.     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
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                       235

               Rohit Jangde v. The State of Chhattisgarh


     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.
4.   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.
5.   PW1, the doctor before whom the bone remnants were produced,
     suggested a chemical examination of the remains, which was carried
     out under the supervision of PW18, the Senior Scientific Officer. The
     FSL report marked as Annexure P21A indicated that the DNA profile
     of the sample taken from PW7 and PW17, the biological parents of
     the deceased child, matched with the DNA profiles of the vertebrae
     and teeth recovered from the canal; the skull having not matched,
     on analysis. PW8, a neighbor of the accused was also examined
     to show that the accused had taken the child from the house on a
     motor bike allegedly establishing the last seen together theory. Thus,
     the circumstances, of the recovery made, the last seen together
     theory projected and the matching of the DNA profiles, led to the
     conviction of the accused.
236                                                           [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


6.     Learned Senior Counsel for the accused on the previous hearing
       date specifically argued that on 05.10.2018, alleging an assault on
       PW7 an FIR was registered which led to the arrest of the accused on
       05.10.2018 itself, after which he was released from judicial custody
       only on 08.10.2018. We have looked at the additional affidavit filed,
       which indicates that the accused was arrested on 06.10.2018 and
       remanded to judicial custody by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate; the
       accused having been released from the District Jail, Kabirdham on
       08.10.2018 as per the bail order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
       Having gone through Annexure 2, the Arrest/Court Surrender Memo
       produced along with the affidavit, we have serious doubts on when
       the arrest occurred. There is clear interpolation in the date and
       though at column No. 8, of the FIR, the arrest is shown to have
       been carried out on 06.10.2018 at 13.40 hrs, in Column No.2 the
       date and time have been changed from 05.10.2018 and 12.40 to
       06 or 08.10.2018 and 13.40. The interpolation on the date is very
       clear from the documents produced which raises a reasonable doubt
       as to the arrest of the accused, which could have been at 12.40
       hrs on 05.10.2018, seriously hampering the last seen theory as
       projected by the prosecution. Be that as it may, we will first examine
       the evidence led at the trial keeping in mind the principle that every
       faulty investigation will not inure to the benefit of the accused unless
       serious prejudice is caused thereby and the evidence led is not
       sufficient to arrive at a finding of guilt, unequivocally.
7.     PW2, mother-in-law of the accused spoke about the quarrel between
       her daughter and the accused and her daughter’s admission to the
       hospital for treatment. She also deposed that she had gone to the
       house of the accused along with the police, to fetch the grandchildren,
       when the first wife of the accused informed her that the accused had
       taken away the second child. Pertinently we have to observe that in
       chief-examination there is no date mentioned and the whereabouts
       of the first child of her daughter, who also was staying along with the
       accused, has not at all been disclosed. PW10, the husband of PW2,
       who accompanied her to the house of the accused fully corroborated
       the version of PW2 but again without any date mentioned and also
       the whereabouts of the first child.
8.     In any event, even going by the version of the State, the accused
       was arrested on 06.10.2018 and released only on 08.10.2018. This
       has been fully corroborated by PW15, the I.O who spoke of the
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                       237

               Rohit Jangde v. The State of Chhattisgarh


     arrest of the accused on 06.10.2018, his remand and later release on
     08.10.2018. The last seen theory as projected through PW8 indicates
     that the child was taken away by the accused, in which circumstance,
     the crime ought to have occurred on 05.10.2018 or before the arrest
     of the accused on 06.10.2018. Despite the child having not been
     found, PW2, PW7 and PW10 did not register any case of missing,
     and an FIR was first registered on 11.10.2018, when PW7 along
     with the accused came to the Police Station and registered an FIR
     regarding the missing child. This assumes relevance especially since
     the incident of assault was reported to the police, who accompanied
     PW2 to the house of the accused on the same day, when they were
     told that the child went with the accused.
9.   The accused having been arrested, even accepting the version of
     the Police, on 06.10.2018, it is strange that no enquiries were made
     about the missing child. Further the missing complaint is said to have
     been registered much later on 11.10.2018. The First Information
     Statement (FIS) by the Sub-Inspector of Sahaspur Lohara Police
     Station is on information supplied by PW2 who was accompanied by
     her husband. The oral report spoken of in the FIS was that the six-
     year-old child went missing at 09.00 P.M. on 06.10.2018, obviously
     after the accused was arrested. These aspects as borne out from the
     records puts to peril the prosecution story of the last seen together
     theory as projected through PW8. PW8 a neighbor of the accused
     also deposed before Court that she volunteered this information
     to the Police, seven days after 05.10.2018; when already the said
     aspect was known to the mother and grandparents of the deceased
     child as also the Police, by virtue of the information supplied by the
     first wife of the accused on 05.10.2018 itself. The last seen together
     theory hence fails miserably.
10. Now we come to the recovery allegedly made under Section 27,
    which is also fraught with inconsistencies as we would presently
    indicate. The memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
    produced as Ex. P4 indicates the same having been drawn up on
    13.10.2018 at 10.30 A.M. The only admissible portion in the said
    memorandum is : ‘I will show you the place... where her bones and
    ashes are and the place where her skull and bones were..’(sic). The
    police were led by the accused first to a field from where bones with
    ashes were recovered at 10.55 A.M evidenced by Property Seizure
    Memo Ex.P5. The canal was searched by three fishermen PW 3 to
238                                                        [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       PW 5 who recovered the skull with 8 numbers of tooth of the upper
       jaw and a piece of bone wrapped in a green color saree, all of which
       showed evidence of burning as indicated in Ex.P3 Property Seizure
       Memo at 13.00 on 13.10.2018. Though the recoveries as per Exts.
       P3 & P5 Memos were made, in accordance with the confession
       statement of the accused, Ext. P4 at 10.30 on 13.10.2018, the Arrest/
       Court Surrender Memo produced at Ex.P27, indicates the arrest of
       the accused having been made on 13.10.2018 at 22.00 hrs. Section
       27 of the Evidence Act clearly speaks of information received from
       a person accused of any offence while in the custody of the police
       leading to a discovery of a fact being enabled of proof in the trial.
       The accused at the time of the statement was not in the custody
       of the police and hence it is removed from the ambit of Section 27.
11. Section 27, as has been held in Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State
    of Maharashtra1, is in effect a proviso to Section 26 which makes
    admissible so much of the statement of the accused deposed to by
    him, leading to the discovery of the fact deposed and connected
    with the crime, irrespective of the question whether it is confessional
    or otherwise. The essential ingredient of the provision is that the
    information given by the accused must lead to the discovery of a
    fact which is the direct outcome of such information. Secondly only
    such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with
    the said recovery is admissible against the accused. Thirdly, the
    discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of the offence
    alleged.
12. A similar situation, as in this case arose before the Calcutta High
    Court in Durlav Namasudra v. Emperor2 wherein the information
    which led to the discovery of the dead body had been given by
    the accused before they were taken into custody. It was held that
    Section 27 controls Section 24 to 26 and the first thing that is to be
    ascertained before its application is whether the information came
    from a person who was in the custody of the police. It was held that
    if information came from a person who was not in the custody of
    the police, then it cannot be brought under Section 27. The Chief
    Justice passed a concurring judgment but expressed anguish insofar


1   (1969) 2 SCC 872
2   1931 SCC Online Cal 146
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                          239

                  Rohit Jangde v. The State of Chhattisgarh


     as Section 27 permitted reliance on a statement made to the police
     which leads to the discovery of a fact, only when the person who
     gave the information is in custody, which was also observed to be
     absurd in terms. However, it was also held that till the legislature
     takes the matter in hand and redrafts the provision, the paradox
     expressed would continue to be law.
13. The position is somewhat clarified in Dharam Deo Yadav v. State
    of Uttar Pradesh3, which dealt with the murder of a foreign national
    by a tourist guide. The I.O having received information that the guide
    was arriving by a train rushed to the railway station and intercepted
    him in the platform. On interrogation it was confessed by the accused
    that he had murdered the victim and the dead body was buried in
    his house. The I.O thus was led to the house of the accused from
    where the accused dug up the skeleton which later was proved to be
    of the victim. It was held that the expression ‘custody’ appearing in
    Section 27 does not mean formal custody and includes any kind of
    surveillance, restriction or restraint by the police. It was held, relying
    on State of A.P. v. Gangula Satya Murthy4 that even if there is no
    formal arrest made, if a person is within the ken of surveillance of
    the police, during which his movements are restricted, then it can
    be regarded as custodial surveillance. It was also held by this Court
    that even if the recovery of the skeleton was not in terms of Section
    27, on the premise that the accused was not in the custody of the
    police while the statement was made, it would be admissible as
    ‘conduct under Section 8 of the Act’. In that case there was absolutely
    no explanation by the accused for the skeleton found buried in his
    own house.
14. In the present case, the FIR was registered on 11.10.2018 at 13.20
    hours and the so-called Section 27 statement was recorded at 10.30
    on 13.10.2018, after which the recoveries were made and the arrest
    carried out later in the night of the 13th. There is nothing indicated to
    show that the accused, who had accompanied his wife to register
    the missing complaint was even suspected of being responsible
    for the missing of the child. In any event, this does not pose any
    difficulty insofar as the deposition of the I.O, PW 15; that he was


3   (2014) 5 SCC 509
4   (1997) 1 SCC 272
240                                                         [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       led to the field and the canal from where the recovery was made,
       subsequent to which the person was arrested, though not admissible
       under Section 27, all the same can be brought under Section 8 of
       the Evidence Act.
15. Apposite also would be a reference to Ramkishan Mithanlal
    Sharma v. State of Bombay5. The charge therein was of commission
    of dacoity using deadly weapons. The I.O deposed before Court that
    on information supplied by the first accused, he reached the location
    where he asked one Bali Ram to dig out a tin box from the mud floor
    of a house pointed out by the first accused leading to recovery of
    three revolvers and live cartridges. Since the I.O did not depose on
    the specific information passed on by the first accused, it was held
    that the operation of Section 27 though not attracted, prima facie there
    was nothing to prevent that evidence being admitted against the first
    accused. We extract herewith paragraph 33 of the cited decision:
            “33. The evidence of the police officer would no doubt
            go to show that the accused knew of the existence of
            the fact discovered in consequence of information given
            by him. But that would not necessarily show his direct
            connection with the offence. It would merely be a link in
            the chain of evidence which taken along with other pieces
            of evidence might go to establish his connection therewith.
            This circumstance would therefore be quite innocuous,
            and evidence could certainly be given of that circumstance
            without attracting the operation of Section 27.”
            [underlining by us for emphasis]

       Hence, we are persuaded to accept the recovery of the bone remnants
       having been made at the instance of the accused, though at the
       time of his statement, he was not in police custody, which could
       only be a link under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, in the chain
       of circumstances; but his connection with the crime still has to be
       proved otherwise.
16. The next circumstance projected by the prosecution is the matching
    of the DNA profiles of the bone remnants with the DNA profiles of



5   (1954) 2 SCC 516
[2026] 3 S.C.R.                                                        241

               Rohit Jangde v. The State of Chhattisgarh


     the biological parents of the deceased child. We have to specifically
     notice that the DNA profiles matched only with the piece of vertebrae
     and the teeth recovered from the canal, while the skull and those
     recovered from the field, where the body is said to have been burnt,
     did not match with the samples taken from the parents. In this context,
     we also have to notice that the bones recovered were wrapped in
     a green saree of PW7, which was not attempted to be identified as
     belonging to her, by confronting the same to the witness, while she
     was in the box.
17. The learned Senior Counsel for the accused also argued that the
    matching of the DNA samples was not put to the accused in the
    Section 313 questioning. PW18 was the Scientific Officer who spoke
    of the samples having matched with the DNA profiles of the bone and
    teeth remnants taken from the canal. Question No. 157 specifically
    was with respect to the blood samples of the mother and father of
    the deceased having been marked as C1 and C2. Question No. 158
    spoke of Ex.A (specifically A-02) and Ex.B DNA profiles and that the
    alleles were found matching with the DNA profile of Ex.C. Question
    No. 159 specifically informed the accused of the vertebrae having
    been marked as A2 and subjected to DNA testing. We are of the
    opinion that question numbers 157 to 159 informed the accused
    about the matching of the DNA profiles which was responded to by
    a bland denial.
18. As of now, we are faced with only two circumstances, the knowledge
    of the accused regarding the place from which the bone remnants
    of the child were recovered and the matching of some of it with the
    DNA profiles of the biological parents of the child. What has been
    established beyond doubt is only the death of the child whose
    vertebrae and teeth, recovered from a canal, matched with the DNA
    profiles obtained from the sample taken from the biological parents.
    The knowledge of the accused, which led to the detection of the
    bone remnants though not acceptable under Section 27 would all
    the same be acceptable evidence under Section 8, which by itself
    is a weak piece of evidence. The evidence under Section 8 can
    only offer corroboration and cannot by itself result in a conviction.
    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 long gap when there was
    no complaint made about the missing child and the factum of none
242                                                         [2026] 3 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       having questioned the accused, despite the family and police having
       been told that she went with the accused tilts the scales in favour
       of the accused; especially since he was released on 08.10.2018,
       two days before the FIR was lodged. Pertinent also is that since the
       corpus delicti was not recovered, there is no time of death specified.
       We are hence unable to uphold the conviction of the accused, and
       he has to be necessarily given the benefit of doubt.
19. The Appeal is allowed. The order of the Trial Court convicting the
    accused and that of the High Court affirming the same are set aside.
    The accused shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other
    case.
20. Before we leave the matter, we cannot but record our appreciation
    for the meticulous preparation of the learned Government Advocate
    who, with astute vigor addressed arguments despite the major pitfalls
    in investigation. We cannot but observe that if the investigation had
    been half as good as the preparation of the State Counsel, the
    shroud of mystery over the poor child’s disappearance and death,
    could have been unravelled. We also appreciate the efforts put in by
    the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, in probing the State to
    effectively bring forth the inept handling of the investigation.
21. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey