The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a stepfather accused of murdering his six-year-old stepdaughter, ruling that a “botched investigation” failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that a statement leading to the discovery of evidence is not admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act if the accused was not in “police custody” at the time of making it.
The Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, observed that while such information might be relevant as “conduct” under Section 8, it is a weak piece of evidence that cannot sustain a conviction without corroboration.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Rohit Jangde, lived with his two wives and three children. The deceased was the daughter of his second wife (PW7) from a previous marriage. On October 5, 2018, a quarrel broke out between the accused and PW7, resulting in an assault on her. She subsequently left for her parents’ home.
The prosecution alleged that when PW7’s mother went to the accused’s house to pick up the children, she was informed that the accused had taken the younger child (the deceased). Despite this knowledge on October 5, a missing person complaint was only registered on October 11, 2018.
On October 13, 2018, the police claimed the accused made a confession statement that led them to a field where charred bones and ashes were found, and to a canal where a skull and teeth wrapped in a saree were recovered. DNA profiling confirmed the teeth belonged to the child of PW7 and her previous husband.
Arguments and Issues
The defense argued that the accused was already in illegal custody prior to his formal arrest shown on record. They pointed out interpolations in the arrest memo, suggesting he was detained on October 5 or 6, which contradicted the prosecution’s timeline for the “last seen together” theory.
The key legal issue was whether the recovery of the body parts based on the accused’s statement was admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, given that he was not formally arrested when the statement was recorded.
Court’s Analysis
1. Inadmissibility under Section 27 due to Lack of Custody: The Court noted that the recovery memo was drawn at 10:30 AM on October 13, while the formal arrest was shown as 10:00 PM that night. Relying on Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra (1969), the Bench held that Section 27 applies only when the information comes from a person “in the custody of the police.” Since the accused was not in custody at the time of the statement, Section 27 was not attracted.
2. Section 8 (Conduct) is Insufficient for Conviction: Citing Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court held that while the statement was inadmissible under Section 27, the accused’s knowledge of the remains could be treated as “conduct” under Section 8. However, the Court emphasized:
“The evidence under Section 8 can only offer corroboration and cannot by itself result in a conviction.”
3. Failure of ‘Last Seen Together’ Theory: The Court found the “last seen” theory implausible due to:
- Interpolations in Records: The arrest memo had dates changed, raising doubts about whether the accused was already in custody when the crime allegedly occurred.
- Delayed FIR: The family knew the child was with the accused on October 5 but did not file a missing report until October 11.
4. Botched Investigation: The Court strongly criticized the investigation, noting that the skull recovered did not match the DNA of the parents, although the teeth did. Justice K. Vinod Chandran remarked:
“A botched investigation leaves many questions unanswered… The murder of a six-year-old girl went unpunished and her stepfather was incarcerated on mere conjectures.”
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the High Court and the Trial Court. The accused was ordered to be released forthwith.
- Case Title: Rohit Jangde v. The State of Chhattisgarh
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2026
