ROHIT JANGDE versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2026] 3 S.C.R. 231 · Decided: 17-02-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 3 S.C.R. 231 : 2026 INSC 162
Rohit Jangde 
v. 
The State of Chhattisgarh
(Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2026)
17 February 2026
[Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was a 
complete chain of circumstances leading only to the hypothesis of the 
guilt of the accused without leaving room for any other hypothesis; 
whether the order of the Trial Court convicting the accused and 
that of the High Court affirming the same ought to be set aside.
Headnotes†
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Statement of accused made when 
not in police custody, outside the purview of s.27 – High Court 
affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused, the 
step-father for the murder of his six year-old step-daughter on 
the basis of the last seen together theory; the ashes and the 
bony remnants from the charred remains of the child having 
been recovered on the information supplied by the accused; 
the skull and teeth recovered from a canal having tallied with 
the sample DNA profile of the biological parents of the girl 
child – Interference with:
Held: Order of the Trial Court convicting the accused and that of 
the High Court affirming the same are set aside – On facts, the 
last seen together theory fails miserably – Recovery allegedly 
made u/s.27 is also fraught with inconsistencies – s.27 speaks 
of information received from a person accused of any offence 
while in the custody of the police leading to a discovery of a fact 
being enabled of proof in the trial – The accused at the time of 
the statement was not in the custody of the police and hence it is 
removed from the ambit of s.27 – What has been established beyond 
doubt is only the death of the child whose vertebrae and teeth, 
recovered from a canal, matched with the DNA profiles obtained 
from the sample taken from the biological parents – The knowledge 
* Author
232
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of the accused, which led to the detection of the bone remnants 
though not acceptable u/s.27 would all the same be acceptable 
evidence u/s.8, which by itself is a weak piece of evidence – The 
evidence u/s.8 can only offer corroboration and cannot by itself 
result in a conviction – The suspicion regarding the earlier arrest 
and incarceration of the accused also would pose serious difficulty 
in finding a hypothesis of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt – The 
long gap when there was no complaint made about the missing 
child and the factum of none having questioned the accused, 
despite the family and police having been told that she went with 
the accused tilts the scales in favour of the accused; especially 
since he was released on 08.10.2018, two days before the FIR 
was lodged – Moreover, since the corpus delicti was not recovered, 
there is no time of death specified – Benefit of doubt given to the 
accused – Acquitted. [Paras 10, 12, 18, 19]
Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.27, 8:
Held: There is nothing indicated to show that the accused, who had 
accompanied his wife to register the missing complaint was even 
suspected of being responsible for the missing of the child – In any 
event, this does not pose any difficulty insofar as the deposition 
of the I.O, PW 15; that he was led to the field and the canal from 
where the recovery was made, subsequent to which the person 
was arrested, though not admissible u/s.27, all the same can be 
brought u/s.8 – The recovery of the bone remnants having been 
made at the instance of the accused accepted, though at the time 
of his statement, he was not in police custody, which could only 
be a link u/s.8, in the chain of circumstances; but his connection 
with the crime still has to be proved otherwise – The DNA profiles 
matched only with the piece of vertebrae and the teeth recovered 
from the canal, while the skull and those recovered from the field, 
where the body is said to have been burnt, did not match with the 
samples taken from the parents – Also, the bones recovered were 
wrapped in a green saree of PW7, which was not attempted to 
be identified as belonging to her, by confronting the same to the 
witness, while she was in the box.[Paras 14-16]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – ‘custody’ – Meaning:
Held: Expression ‘custody’ appearing in s.27 does not mean 
formal custody and includes any kind of surveillance, restriction 
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 
233
Rohit Jangde v. The State of Chhattisgarh
or restraint by the police – Even if there is no formal 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.