Supreme Court Acquits Maternal Uncle Convicted of Raping and Murdering Minor Niece; Bones Recovered Were of Male Origin, Body Never Found, Chain of Circumstances Broken
Updated: Oct 7
The Supreme Court of India on October 1, 2026 set aside the conviction and life sentence of a man found guilty of raping and murdering his minor niece, holding that the prosecution's chain of circumstances was broken at almost every link. A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar noted that the child's body was never traced, that the bones recovered at the accused's instance were of male origin, and that no witness saw the accused take the child away. The Court acquitted the accused and directed that he be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Case at a Glance
Case Title: Santosh Gurung v. State of Sikkim
Citation: 2026 INSC 1073
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2018
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar (judgment authored by Justice Chandurkar)
What Was Challenged: Conviction under Sections 376(2)(i), 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, with life imprisonment, affirmed by the High Court of Sikkim
Courts Below: Sessions Court, S.T. (POCSO) Case No. 20 of 2014 (judgment dated 20.04.2016); High Court of Sikkim, Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2016
Date of Judgment: October 1, 2026
A Child Goes Missing and Months of Silence Follow
According to the prosecution, on 06.11.2013 at about 9.00 a.m., the accused was asked by his mother to buy vegetables. He asked his maternal niece, the child at the centre of this case, to accompany him. His mother did not permit it. The prosecution said he took the child anyway. When neither returned, the family searched for them, and a Missing Report was lodged at Rongli Police Station on 12.11.2013.
The accused was traced at Siliguri much later. The First Information Report is dated 13.05.2014, more than six months after the Missing Report. It records that while being brought back from Siliguri to Rongli, the accused said he had raped the child and thereafter throttled her to death on 06.11.2013. The Sessions Court convicted him on circumstantial evidence after examining sixteen witnesses, and the High Court affirmed the conviction. The accused then approached the Supreme Court.
Six Circumstances Offered as a Chain
The prosecution had no eyewitness. It relied on six circumstances: the accused was last seen with the child; articles were recovered on his disclosure under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a DNA report on bones and teeth recovered at his instance; a forensic science laboratory report on articles from the place of occurrence; a brown shawl recovered at his instance; and his silence while his statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Court examined each one and began by saying the chain "appears broken at various places".
Was the Accused Really Last Seen With the Child?
The Court found the answer far from certain. The child's grandmother (PW-2) could not say whether the accused and the child left together or separately, and said two other persons from the village had also visited the house that morning. The Head Constable (PW-1) admitted that no witness had seen the accused take the child from the house, or noticed him missing from the village. The child's mother (PW-3) could not say whether her daughter had gone with those two visitors. The Investigating Officer (PW-16) also admitted that no one saw the accused take the child away.
The Court added that the time gap was fatal. The child was said to be last seen on 06.11.2013, while bones and teeth were found on 15.05.2014, about six months later. Relying on State of U.P. v. Satish, it recalled that the last seen theory works only where the gap is so small that no one else could have committed the crime, and that it is hazardous to conclude guilt where a long gap allows others to intervene.
The Recovery From a Spot Anyone Could See
Clothes and other articles were recovered on 15.05.2014 on the accused's disclosure. But three witnesses, including the grandmother, admitted that the spot was not thick jungle, was visited by people collecting fodder and grazing cattle, and could be easily seen by anyone who went there. Citing State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh, the Court said the crucial question is not whether a place is accessible to others but whether it was ordinarily visible to them, and that a recovery from a place ordinarily visible to others must be examined with care.
The DNA Report That Pointed the Other Way
This is the most striking part of the judgment. The DNA report found that the two pieces of bone recovered at the accused's instance were of human male origin, while the victim was a female. They did not match the blood samples of the child's mother or sister. The Court held the prosecution had not even shown that the bones and teeth belonged to the victim.
The medico-legal specialist (PW-13) admitted that his report did not say whether three suspected flat bones were human or animal, could not say whether a tooth was human, and was unsure whether a piece of nail was a nail or a piece of wood. The Investigating Officer admitted he could not state whether the bones and teeth belonged to the victim. The Court held the DNA report "cannot be relied upon as a circumstance against the appellant".
The Forensic Laboratory Report and the Brown Shawl
The analyst (PW-11) could not tell whether dried blood on the brown shawl was human or animal, could not ascertain the age of the hair found on it, and found no human remains in the soil sample. The Court held the report could not be relied upon as a circumstance.
The prosecution said the accused took the shawl from his mother's house and laid the child on it. But the child's family could not identify the shawl, and the Investigating Officer admitted it did not belong to the accused's mother, though the accused had said it did. No witness saw the accused go to the house to get it. The Court said this created doubt on the prosecution's own story.
Can Silence Under Section 313 Complete the Chain?
The prosecution argued the accused failed to explain the circumstances against him. The Court noted that he admitted his mother had not allowed him to take the child, and that he went to another witness's house around 1.00 p.m. that day, heavily drunk. He claimed he was falsely implicated. The Court found no failure on his part to explain any incriminating circumstance.
It explained that an accused's silence can at most be an additional link, and only if the prosecution has first proved a complete chain. It does not shift the burden of proof. Relying on State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram and Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the Court held that answers under Section 313 cannot be used to fill gaps left by the prosecution.
The Verdict: Strong Doubt, but No Proof
Summing up, the Court said the evidence was:
woefully short of pointing to the guilt of the appellant.
Both the Sessions Court and the High Court, it held, failed to notice material factors available on the record. The Court acknowledged that the child "met an unfortunate end", but said it would hardly be justifiable to convict the appellant when none of the circumstances pointed towards his involvement. Applying the test in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh that circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with guilt, it set aside both judgments and acquitted the accused, giving him the benefit of doubt.
What This Means Going Forward
The judgment is a reminder that even in a case involving the death of a child, courts must insist on proof rather than suspicion. Three lessons stand out. First, the last seen theory needs a short time gap and witnesses who are actually sure. Second, scientific reports only help the prosecution if they connect the recovered material to the victim. Third, a recovery under Section 27 from a place ordinarily visible to others must be treated with caution. For prosecutors, it is a warning about the cost of an investigation that left a six month gap between a Missing Report and an FIR, and a body that was never found.
Build a Career in Criminal Litigation and Courtroom Practice
Circumstantial evidence, last seen theory, Section 27 recoveries and forensic evidence decide criminal trials every day. Learn them hands-on in ILW's Professional Certificate Course in Legal Drafting, Court Practice and AI for Lawyers, which covers criminal law under BNS and BNSS, evidence, courtroom advocacy and drafting.
Stay Updated on Landmark Judgments
Join ILW's WhatsApp Channel for daily judgment updates: Click here to join
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Santosh Gurung v. State of Sikkim?
On October 1, 2026 the Court set aside the conviction and life sentence of the accused, who had been convicted of raping and murdering his minor niece, and acquitted him, holding that the prosecution's chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete.
2. Why did the last seen theory fail in this case?
No witness saw the accused take the child away, the grandmother was unsure whether they left together, other villagers had visited the house, and bones were found about six months later, leaving room for others to be involved.
3. Why did the Court not rely on the DNA report?
The report found that the recovered bones were of male origin while the victim was a female, and they did not match her mother's or sister's blood samples. The prosecution could not show the bones belonged to the victim.
4. Does an accused's silence under Section 313 prove guilt?
No. It can at most be an additional link once the prosecution has proved a complete chain. It does not shift the burden of proof or fill gaps in the prosecution's evidence.
5. Can a recovery from an open or accessible place be relied on?
It can, but with care. The Court, following the Jeet Singh decision, said the key question is whether the place was ordinarily visible to others, not merely whether it was accessible.
Keywords: Supreme Court of India, Santosh Gurung v State of Sikkim, circumstantial evidence, last seen theory, Section 27 Indian Evidence Act recovery, DNA report bones male origin, Section 313 CrPC statement, Section 302 Indian Penal Code, POCSO Act, Ujjal Bhuyan, Atul Chandurkar, 2026 INSC 1073
Case Title: Santosh Gurung v. State of Sikkim
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2018
Comments