Finding of dead body in accused’s locked house alone insufficient to sustain conviction absent a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.

The Appellant was accused of raping and murdering an eight-year-old girl on December 16, 2007.

The informant (the girl’s father) alleged that the victim went to collect waste papers and did not return.

The following morning, the victim’s body was discovered inside the locked room of the Appellant.

The prosecution’s case rested on the recovery of the body and testimonies from the victim’s aunt (P.W. 1) and a neighbor (P.W. 2).

Notably, the informant and his wife were never examined during the trial.

On February 16, 2019, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

The Appellant challenged this conviction, having remained in custody for approximately 15 years.

1. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, specifically the "last seen" theory, to sustain a conviction.

2. Whether the recovery of the dead body from the Appellant’s room was sufficient to shift the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

3. Whether the non-examination of material witnesses (the informant and his wife) and the failure of serological evidence vitiated the conviction.

The court primarily applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 376 (Rape) of the Indian Penal Code.

It relied on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (corresponding to Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), regarding the burden of proving facts within the special knowledge of a person.

Furthermore, the court applied the established legal doctrine for circumstantial evidence, which dictates that the chain of events must be so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.

The High Court found that the Trial Court's conviction was based on "absolute lack of evidence".

First, the "last seen" theory failed because no witness saw the Appellant and the deceased together after she left her home.

While the body was found in the Appellant's room, the room was locked and dark when the search began, and there was no evidence that the Appellant was present at the time the crime likely occurred.

Second, the Court held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be used to shift the primary burden of proof onto the accused when the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational facts of the chain.

Third, the scientific evidence was inconclusive; the serological report (P.W. 5) failed to identify the blood group on seized items or confirm the presence of the Appellant’s DNA/semen linked to the victim.

Finally, the non-examination of the informant meant the contents of the F.I.R. were never legally proved, depriving the defense of the opportunity to cross-examine on vital contradictions.

The court held that the prosecution "hopelessly failed" to establish the charges and that the conviction was based on inadmissible considerations and a broken chain of circumstances.

The Court ordered the immediate release of the Appellant, noting with "lament" that he had spent 15 years in custody despite the total absence of incriminating evidence.