Circumstantial cases are won and lost on the integrity of the chain. In Santosh Gurung v. State of Sikkim, Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2018, decided on 1 October 2026, a Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar acquitted a man who had spent years under a life sentence for the rape and murder of his minor niece. The Sessions Court had convicted; the High Court of Sikkim had affirmed. The Supreme Court found the prosecution's circumstances broken at several places — most strikingly, a DNA report recording that the bone extracts recovered at the accused's instance were of male origin, while the victim was female.
The prosecution case
The allegation was grave. On 6 November 2013, the accused — the victim's maternal uncle — was said to have taken the minor girl from the house. A missing report was lodged on 12 November 2013, and the accused was later traced at Siliguri. An FIR of 13 May 2014 recorded his alleged disclosure that he had raped and strangled the child. Bones and teeth were recovered on 15 May 2014, in a recovery attributed to his disclosure under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Sessions Court convicted under Sections 376(2)(i), 302 and 201 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, imposing imprisonment for life. The High Court of Sikkim affirmed. Before the Supreme Court, the entire edifice was circumstantial: no eyewitness, no body identified in the ordinary way — a chain of inferences from disappearance to disclosure to recovery.
Where the chain snapped
The Court held that the guilt of the appellant had not been established beyond reasonable doubt, that the chain of circumstances was broken at various places, and that the accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC could not be pressed into service to repair it. The convictions were set aside and the appellant ordered to be released forthwith unless required in another case.
The larger lesson for POCSO and murder trials
Nothing in the judgment dilutes the seriousness with which courts treat sexual offences against children. What it polices is method. The POCSO Act contains statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30, but presumptions operate only after foundational facts are proved; they do not relieve the prosecution of establishing, by admissible evidence, that the offence occurred and that the accused committed it. Where the case is circumstantial, the five golden principles governing such evidence apply with full rigour, and scientific evidence that contradicts the charge cannot simply be passed over because the accusation is dreadful.
The DNA finding deserves particular attention from practitioners. Defence counsel frequently treat forensic reports as the prosecution's territory. This case is a reminder that the defence must read every scientific exhibit closely: the decisive contradiction — male bone extracts in the case of a female victim — was sitting in the record through two rounds of conviction.
Practical pointers
In circumstantial prosecutions, test each link independently: last seen, motive, disclosure, recovery, scientific corroboration. A single broken link is not a technicality; it is the difference between proof and suspicion.
Scrutinise Section 27 recoveries for exclusivity of knowledge — recoveries from publicly accessible places carry reduced evidentiary weight.
Cross-check forensic reports against the prosecution narrative line by line; inconsistencies of identity, origin or chronology are acquittal-grade material.
Remember the appellate route: even concurrent findings of two courts yield where the record discloses perversity in the appreciation of evidence — the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 extends to exactly such cases.
Frequently Asked Questions
What standard governs a conviction based on circumstantial evidence?
The circumstances relied upon must be fully established, must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, and must form a complete chain. If the chain is broken at any material point, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused — as it did here, where the Court found the chain broken at various places.
Why did the "last seen" theory fail in this case?
No witness actually saw the accused take the victim from the house. The Supreme Court treated the last-seen circumstance as doubtful because it rested on assumption rather than direct observation, and a doubtful first link weakens every link that follows it.
What was wrong with the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act?
The bones and teeth were recovered from a place visible and accessible to the public. Recoveries from open, publicly accessible spots call for caution, because the possibility that others knew of, or had access to, the spot undermines the inference that the recovery flowed exclusively from the accused's knowledge.
Can an accused's Section 313 statement fill gaps in the prosecution case?
No. The examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC — now Section 351 of the BNSS, 2023 — is an opportunity for the accused to explain incriminating circumstances. The Court reiterated that it cannot be used as a substitute for evidence the prosecution failed to lead.