Supreme Court Acquits Rape and Murder Convict Due to Broken Circumstantial Evidence Chain

Supreme Court Acquits Rape and Murder Convict Over Broken Circumstantial Evidence Chain

The Supreme Court has acquitted a man convicted of rape and murder, holding that the prosecution's case rested on a broken chain of circumstantial evidence and that DNA testing failed to establish any link between the accused and the victim. The judgment, delivered on October 1, 2026, by Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar in Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2018 (Santosh Gurung v. State of Sikkim), sets aside convictions imposed by both the Sessions Court and the Sikkim High Court.

Santosh Gurung had been convicted under Sections 376(2)(i), 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The Supreme Court found that these convictions could not stand because the prosecution had failed to discharge its fundamental burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

DNA evidence breaks the chain

The bench's reasoning centres on a core principle of criminal law: circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain that excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. In this case, the Court found significant gaps in the prosecution's narrative. The evidence presented did not connect Gurung to the crime in a manner that eliminated all other possible explanations for the victim's death or the circumstances surrounding it.

DNA evidence played a crucial role in the Court's analysis. Testing conducted during the trial failed to establish any biological link between Gurung and the victim. This negative result, the bench noted, could not be overlooked or explained away by the prosecution. In cases involving sexual offences, particularly those against children, DNA evidence often provides objective proof of contact. When such evidence does not support the prosecution's theory, it creates a significant gap in the chain of circumstantial proof.

Section 313 cannot fill evidentiary gaps

The judgment also addresses a procedural issue that arises frequently in criminal trials. The prosecution had apparently attempted to rely on the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to fill gaps in its case. Section 313 CrPC requires the court to put questions to the accused based on the evidence already led, allowing the accused an opportunity to respond. However, the Supreme Court made clear that this procedural safeguard cannot be used as a substitute for solid evidence. If the prosecution's case contains holes, the accused's responses during examination cannot patch them over.

This principle reflects a fundamental protection in criminal law: the burden of proof rests entirely on the State. The accused is not required to prove innocence or to explain away weak evidence. The prosecution must build its case through credible, reliable evidence that, taken together, proves every element of the offence beyond doubt. When circumstantial evidence is the foundation of the case, each link in the chain must be strong and the chain itself must be complete.

Rigorous scrutiny of inferences

The acquittal demonstrates the rigorous standard applied by Indian courts when evaluating circumstantial evidence in serious offences. Unlike direct evidence, which consists of eyewitness testimony or confessions, circumstantial evidence requires the court to draw inferences from facts proved. These inferences must be not only reasonable but also necessary. If more than one inference can be drawn from the facts, the inference favourable to the accused must prevail.

The case also reflects the evolving role of scientific evidence in criminal trials. DNA testing has become a standard investigative tool, and courts now expect it to be used in cases involving sexual offences. When DNA evidence is available and is tested, its results carry significant weight. A negative result—showing no match between the accused and biological material from the victim—creates a serious obstacle to conviction based on circumstantial evidence alone.

The involvement of the Sikkim High Court in this matter indicates that the case had already undergone appellate scrutiny before reaching the Supreme Court. The High Court had upheld the Sessions Court's conviction, presumably finding the circumstantial evidence sufficient. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, suggesting that the lower courts may have been too willing to accept the prosecution's narrative without subjecting each link in the chain to rigorous scrutiny.