A conviction based on circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained where the chain of circumstances is incomplete, the evidence does not conclusively establish guilt, and reasonable doubt persists.
Facts
The appellant, Santosh Gurung, was convicted by the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 376(2)(i), 302 and 201 IPC, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, in connection with the alleged rape and murder of his minor maternal niece on 06.11.2013. His conviction was affirmed by the High Court of Sikkim.
The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the alleged last-seen circumstance, recoveries under S.27 of the Indian Evidence Act, DNA and FSL reports, a brown shawl allegedly used in the crime, and the appellant's statement under S.313 CrPC.
The appellant challenged his conviction on the ground that the circumstances did not form a complete chain establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Implied Issues
Whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution formed a complete chain of evidence establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the alleged last-seen evidence, recoveries, forensic reports and the appellant's statement under S.313 CrPC were sufficient to sustain his conviction.
Court's Reasoning
(a) Circumstantial Evidence and Last-Seen Theory
The Court reiterated the principles in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952) that circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the guilt of the accused, and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence (Para 7).
The witnesses were uncertain whether the appellant had actually left with the victim. No witness had seen him taking her away. Further, the substantial time gap between the alleged last-seen circumstance and the discovery of remains rendered the inference of guilt unsafe (Para 9(a)).
(b) Recovery under S.27 of the Evidence Act
The recovered articles were found at a location frequently visited by villagers and ordinarily visible to others. Relying on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh (1999), the Court emphasised that the crucial consideration was whether the concealed articles were ordinarily visible, necessitating cautious scrutiny of the recovery evidence (Para 9(b)).
(c) Forensic Evidence
The DNA report identified the recovered bones as being of human male origin, whereas the victim was female. The FSL report could not establish the origin of the blood on the shawl or connect the recovered articles with the victim. These reports, therefore, failed to corroborate the prosecution's case (Paras 9(c)–(d)).
(d) Brown Shawl and S.313 CrPC
The identity and ownership of the brown shawl remained doubtful. The Court further held that the appellant's statement under S.313 CrPC could not fill gaps in the prosecution's evidence or independently establish guilt. An adverse inference could arise only where incriminating circumstances were fully established and remained unexplained (Para 9(e)–(f)).
Held
The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing exclusively towards the appellant's guilt. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Sessions Court and High Court, acquitted the appellant, and directed his release forthwith if not required in any other case.
Conclusion
A conviction founded on circumstantial evidence is unsustainable when the established circumstances do not form a complete chain excluding reasonable hypotheses of innocence, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Relevant Para
Para 7...."In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”
Para 9.... in State of U.P. Vs. Satish, wherein it was held as under: “The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases.”
Para 9.....in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jeet Singh. It was observed as under: “There is nothing in Section 27 of the Evidence Act which renders the statement of the accused inadmissible if recovery of the articles was made from any place which is “open or accessible to others”. It is a fallacious notion that when recovery of any incriminating article was made from a place which is open or accessible to others, it would vitiate the evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Any object can be concealed in places which are open or accessible to others. For example, if the article is buried on the main roadside or if it is concealed beneath dry leaves lying on public places or kept hidden in a public office, the article would remain out of the visibility of the others in normal circumstances. Until such article is disinterred its hidden state would remain unhampered. The person who hid it alone knows where it is until he discloses that fact to any other person. Hence the crucial question is not whether the place was accessible to others or not but whether it was ordinarily visible to others. If it is not, then it is immaterial that the concealed place is accessible to others.”
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 1073
Decided on: 1 October 2026
Case Title: Santosh Gurung v. State of Sikkim
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, J. and Atul S. Chandurkar, J.