In a Sikkim child rape-murder case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court has acquitted a man serving life imprisonment, finding that the last-seen evidence was shaky and that the DNA report showed the bones recovered at his instance were of male origin while the victim was a girl.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction and life sentence of a man found guilty of raping and murdering a minor girl in Sikkim in 2013, holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution was “broken at various places” and that he was entitled to the benefit of doubt [Santosh Gurung v. State of Sikkim].
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, in a judgment authored by Justice Atul S. Chandurkar on October 1, 2026, quashed the Sessions Court’s 2016 verdict and the Sikkim High Court’s judgment affirming it, and directed that the appellant be set free forthwith if not required in any other case.
The case
The appellant, a relative of the child, was convicted under Sections 376(2)(i), 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced to life imprisonment. According to the prosecution, on November 6, 2013 he took the girl from the house where she lived, after being told not to take her along. A missing report was lodged on November 12, 2013. The appellant was traced at Siliguri much later, and an FIR was registered on May 13, 2014 on the basis of what he allegedly said while being brought back.
The body of the child was never found. The prosecution relied on six circumstances: that the appellant was last seen with her; the recovery of articles under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; a DNA report on bones and teeth recovered at his instance; a forensic report; a brown shawl allegedly used in the crime; and his answers in his Section 313 CrPC statement.
Counsel for the appellant argued that the witnesses were unsure whether he was last seen with the child, that the six-month delay in registering the FIR was unexplained, that the recovery was from an open spot and that the forensic and DNA reports did not support the prosecution. The State argued that the circumstances pointed only to the appellant and that both courts had concurrently found him guilty.
No one saw him take the child
The Bench found that the key witnesses could not say whether the appellant and the child left together. The child’s grandmother admitted that two other villagers had visited the house that day and that she did not notice whether the two left together or separately. The Head Constable and the Investigating Officer both admitted that no one had seen the appellant taking the child away. Noting that the child was missing from November 6, 2013 and the bones were recovered only on May 15, 2014, the Court relied on State of U.P. v. Satish to hold that the last-seen theory could not be safely applied:
“There is no specific evidence on record on the basis of which it could be asserted that it was indeed the appellant who had taken the victim from the house or that he was last seen with the victim after which she was found missing.”
Recovery from an open spot, DNA of male origin
Witnesses to the recovery admitted that the spot was not thick jungle, lay near an old road and a water channel, and was regularly visited by people collecting fodder and grazing cattle. Citing State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh, the Bench said a recovery from a place “ordinarily visible to others” has to be examined with care.
The scientific evidence went against the prosecution. The DNA report concluded that the two pieces of bone were “of human male origin” and not biologically related to the blood samples of the child’s mother and sister. The medico-legal expert could not say whether the bones and tooth were human, and the Investigating Officer could not say they belonged to the child. The forensic analyst could not tell whether the blood on the brown shawl was human or animal, and the appellant’s mother denied that the shawl was hers. The Court held:
“The DNA report at Exhibit- 37, on the contrary, indicates that the pieces of bone were of male origin while the victim was a female. They naturally did not match the blood samples of the victim’s mother and sister. The DNA report at Exhibit-37, therefore, cannot be relied upon as a circumstance against the appellant.”
Section 313 answers cannot fill the gaps
On the State’s reliance on the appellant’s Section 313 statement, the Bench found no failure on his part to explain any incriminating circumstance. Relying on Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, it held that an accused’s answers can at most be an additional link where the other circumstances are proved, and cannot be used to fill gaps left by the prosecution.
Faulting both the trial court and the High Court for missing these infirmities, the Bench concluded:
“The guilt of the appellant has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. A strong doubt about his involvement in the offence is created in view of the prosecution evidence. It is also true that the victim met an unfortunate end. However, on the basis of such material on record, it would hardly be justifiable to convict the appellant for the same when none of the circumstances point towards his involvement.”
Why The Sikkim Child Rape-Murder Case Judgment Matters
Child sexual assault and murder cases carry heavy public pressure, and where no body is recovered, prosecutions often rest on a last-seen claim and recoveries attributed to the accused. The ruling is a reminder that the gravity of the crime does not lower the standard of proof: each circumstance must be fully established and together they must exclude every hypothesis other than guilt.
The judgment also shows how scientific evidence can cut against the prosecution. A DNA report that the bones were of male origin, and forensic findings that could not even confirm human blood, left the case with no reliable link to the child, an infirmity the Bench said both lower courts failed to notice.
Case Title: Santosh Gurung v. State of Sikkim [Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2018]
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1073
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: October 1, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Sangeeta Kumar for the Appellant; Advocate Sameer Abhyankar for the State of Sikkim
If you know of a child in distress or at risk of abuse, call CHILDLINE at 1098.