A conviction on circumstantial evidence survives only if the proved circumstances form a complete chain pointing to the accused and no one else. In Santosh Gurung v. State of Sikkim (2026 INSC 1073, Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2018, decided 1 October 2026), a Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar acquitted a man convicted under Sections 376(2)(i), 302 and 201 IPC read with the POCSO Act for the rape and murder of a child in 2013 — because the chain never closed.
The prosecution story
A child went missing on 6 November 2013. The appellant, traced later at Siliguri and brought back, was alleged to have confessed to sexually assaulting and strangling her; recoveries followed, said to be at his instance under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (see now Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). The trial court convicted him of rape, murder and causing disappearance of evidence, and the conviction was affirmed in appeal, bringing the matter to the Supreme Court under Article 136.
Five gaps the Court could not ignore
The witnesses were not definite that the appellant was last seen with the victim — the first link in the chain was never firmly forged.
Analysis of the recovered skeletal remains indicated male bone origin, although the victim was a girl. The scientific evidence thus contradicted, rather than confirmed, the identification of the remains.
The recovery site was publicly accessible, diluting the exclusivity of knowledge that gives a Section 27 disclosure its probative force.
The forensic reports did not connect the appellant to the crime, and ownership of a brown shawl relied upon by the prosecution remained unconfirmed.
Applying the settled five-point test for circumstantial cases, the Court held that the proved circumstances did not exclude every hypothesis other than guilt, quashed the conviction and directed the appellant’s immediate release.
The doctrine, restated
The judgment is an orthodox application of the rule that in a case resting wholly on circumstances, the court must first ask which circumstances are actually proved — not alleged, inferred or suspected — and then ask whether those circumstances, taken together, are consistent only with guilt. Confessions said to have been made to witnesses after the accused is traced, recoveries from accessible places, and equivocal forensic reports are familiar weak links. When the supporting science points the other way, the structure collapses entirely.
Disappearance, the appellant’s movement to Siliguri, an alleged confession, recoveries and recovered remains together told a complete story of guilt.
Each link was individually infirm — uncertain sightings, accessible recovery sites, inconclusive forensics — and the DNA finding contradicted the narrative. Suspicion remained; proof did not.
Why the case matters in practice
The acquittal does not diminish the gravity of the crime against the child; it enforces the standard that gravity can never dilute. The more serious the offence, the more scrupulous the proof must be — a principle the Supreme Court has repeated for decades and applies here with full rigour.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must the prosecution prove in a circumstantial case?
Each circumstance must be fully established by cogent evidence; the circumstances must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused; they must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; and together they must form a complete, unbroken chain. A strong suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute for this standard.
Why did the DNA evidence matter so much here?
The forensic analysis of recovered remains indicated male bone origin although the victim was a girl — a contradiction at the heart of the prosecution narrative. Scientific evidence that undercuts rather than supports the prosecution story does not merely fail to corroborate; it actively breaks the chain.
Is "last seen together" enough to convict?
Rarely on its own. Last-seen evidence has value when the time gap between the sighting and the crime is small and the witnesses are definite. Where witnesses are uncertain whether the accused was with the victim at all, the circumstance is not established and cannot anchor a conviction.
What is the effect of acquittal after years in custody?
The conviction and sentence are set aside and the appellant is released immediately unless held in another case. The law provides no automatic compensation for the years spent in custody, although remedies in public law have been granted in exceptional cases of malicious or wholly baseless prosecution.