Evidence Act, 1872 :- Section 27: Admissibility of statements made by accused:- in custody; Statement made by accused not in police custody at time of making it is not admissible under Section 27, but can be admitted as conduct under Section 8 as a link in the chain of evidence.
Shivaji Rathore 5 March 2026
Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment clarifying the scope of Sections 27 and 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly regarding the admissibility of statements made by an accused person and the evidentiary value of conduct leading to discovery of facts.
The Court emphasized that statements leading to discovery are admissible under Section 27 only when the accused is in police custody at the time of making the statement. However, if the accused is not in custody, the statement may still be considered as conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, though it cannot independently sustain a conviction.
The decision also highlights the importance of a complete and reliable chain of circumstantial evidence, reiterating that defective investigation and weak evidence must result in acquittal by granting the accused the benefit of doubt.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the alleged murder of a six-year-old girl, where the stepfather of the child was accused of killing her. The prosecution relied primarily on three circumstances: The “last seen together” theory, based on testimony of a neighbour who claimed to have seen the child with the accused.
The recovery of burnt bones and ashes, allegedly discovered on the basis of information supplied by the accused.
DNA analysis, which suggested that certain bone fragments and teeth recovered matched the DNA profiles of the biological parents of the child. Based on these circumstances, the trial court convicted the accused and the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
However, the accused challenged the decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution evidence was inconsistent and the investigation was flawed.
Key Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court:- The Supreme Court examined several critical legal questions: Whether the statement allegedly made by the accused leading to recovery of bones was admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Whether the conduct of the accused leading to discovery could still be used as evidence under Section 8.
Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution formed a complete chain proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether defects in investigation and inconsistencies in evidence were sufficient to grant the accused the benefit of doubt.
Admissibility of Statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act:- Section 27 of the Evidence Act creates an exception to the general rule that confessions made to police officers are inadmissible. It allows a limited portion of the statement of an accused to be admitted if:- The statement leads to the discovery of a fact, and
The statement is made while the accused is in police custody.
In the present case, the Supreme Court found that the statement attributed to the accused was recorded before he was formally arrested.
The Court observed that since the accused was not in police custody at the time of making the statement, the requirements of Section 27 were not satisfied. Consequently, the statement could not be treated as admissible under Section 27.
This clarification reinforces the procedural safeguard that custody is an essential condition for invoking Section 27.
Conduct of the Accused as Evidence under Section 8
Even though the statement was not admissible under Section 27, the Court held that the conduct of the accused leading the police to the recovery site could still be considered relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Section 8 permits evidence relating to conduct that influences or is influenced by a fact in issue.
The Court noted that if an accused guides the police to a location where incriminating material is recovered, such conduct may become a link in the chain of circumstances. However, the Court clarified an important limitation:- Conduct evidence alone cannot form the sole basis for conviction. It must be supported by other strong and reliable evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Failure of the “Last Seen Together” Theory:- The prosecution attempted to establish guilt through the last seen together theory, claiming that a neighbour had seen the accused taking the child on a motorcycle.
The Supreme Court found several serious inconsistencies in this claim:- The accused was arrested shortly after the alleged incident, creating doubt about the timeline of events.
Despite knowing that the child had gone with the accused, no missing complaint was filed immediately. The FIR for the missing child was lodged several days later, raising doubts about the prosecution’s narrative.
These contradictions undermined the credibility of the last seen theory, leading the Court to reject it.
Weakness in DNA Evidence and Recovery:- The Court also scrutinized the DNA evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
The forensic report revealed that: Only certain bone fragments and teeth matched the DNA profile of the biological parents.
The skull and other bones recovered did not match the DNA samples. Further, the recovered bones were found wrapped in a green saree, which the prosecution failed to properly identify through witnesses.
These inconsistencies weakened the reliability of the recovery evidence and failed to conclusively establish the identity of the remains.
Deficiencies in Investigation:- The Supreme Court strongly criticized the defective investigation in the case.
The Court observed:
There were interpolations in the arrest memo, raising doubts about the actual date of arrest. The investigation failed to clarify when the accused was taken into custody.
Authorities did not investigate the disappearance of the child promptly, despite suspicious circumstances. The Court reiterated that while every defective investigation does not automatically lead to acquittal, a conviction cannot stand where the prosecution evidence itself becomes unreliable due to investigative lapses.
Supreme Court’s Final Decision:- After evaluating the entire record, the Supreme Court held that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution did not form a complete chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused.
The Court concluded that:
The last seen theory was unreliable,
The Section 27 recovery was legally unsustainable due to absence of custody.
The DNA evidence was inconclusive.
The investigation suffered from serious inconsistencies.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused, granting him the benefit of doubt.
Case Details :-
ROHIT JANGDE
Vs.
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. )
Criminal Appeal No.689 of 2026 [@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5624 of 2024]
Decided on : 17-02-2026
