Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA

“Section 106 Cannot Fill the Gaps”, In a significant pronouncement on the scope of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and the burden of proof in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court on 17 February 2026 in Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2026) set aside the conviction of a stepfather accused of murdering his six-year-old stepdaughter. The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that Section 106 cannot be invoked to cure fundamental gaps in the prosecution’s case or to compensate for an incomplete chain of circumstances.

The Court emphatically ruled that when the prosecution fails to establish a complete and consistent chain pointing only to guilt, the burden does not shift to the accused to explain alleged incriminating circumstances.

The conviction of the accused had been upheld by the High Court on three principal circumstances: the “last seen together” theory, recovery of bone remnants allegedly on the accused’s information, and DNA matching of certain bones with the biological parents of the deceased child.

The High Court further relied on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, observing that the accused had failed to explain how he knew the location from which the bone remnants were recovered. This absence of explanation was treated as an additional incriminating factor.

Before the Supreme Court, the defence argued that the prosecution’s chain of circumstances was riddled with inconsistencies, delay in lodging the missing complaint, doubtful arrest records, and inadmissibility of the alleged disclosure statement under Section 27.

Collapse of Circumstantial Chain

The Supreme Court first dismantled the prosecution’s “last seen” theory, noting unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and contradictions in the timeline of arrest and disappearance. The Court observed that despite knowing that the child had allegedly gone with the accused, no prompt complaint was made.

The alleged recovery under Section 27 was also rejected because the accused was not in police custody at the time of making the statement. Though the act of leading the police was treated as admissible conduct under Section 8, the Court described it as a weak piece of evidence incapable of sustaining conviction by itself.

DNA evidence, the Court held, established the death of the child but did not connect the accused to the crime.

Having found that only two circumstances survived — knowledge of the recovery site and DNA confirmation of death — the Court concluded that the chain was incomplete.

“Section 106 Cannot Be Used to Fill the Gaps”

The High Court had drawn adverse inference under Section 106 on the ground that the accused failed to explain how he knew the location of the remains.

The Supreme Court disapproved this approach. The Bench clarified that Section 106 does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It operates only when foundational facts have been firmly established by the prosecution.

In a pointed observation, the Court held that in the absence of a complete chain of circumstances, Section 106 cannot be pressed into service to supply missing links.

The judgment makes it clear that an accused’s silence or failure to offer explanation cannot be treated as substantive evidence of guilt unless the prosecution has first discharged its burden.

Faulty Investigation and Presumption of Innocence

The Court also noted serious doubts regarding the timing of arrest due to visible interpolation in official documents. It acknowledged that every faulty investigation does not automatically benefit the accused, but where serious prejudice is caused and evidence remains insufficient, benefit of doubt must follow.

Significantly, the Bench remarked:

“A botched investigation leaves many questions unanswered and in the present case, the murder of a six-year-old girl went unpunished and her stepfather was incarcerated on mere conjectures.”

The Court emphasized that suspicion — even if strong — cannot take the place of proof, and that constitutional criminal jurisprudence demands proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Reaffirming the Rule of Burden

The judgment stands as a reaffirmation of a fundamental criminal law principle: the prosecution must stand on its own legs. Section 106 cannot be converted into a tool to reverse the burden of proof or compel the accused to explain away prosecution lapses.

By setting aside the conviction, the Supreme Court reinforced that the presumption of innocence remains paramount and that adverse inference cannot be drawn in a vacuum of proof.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and High Court and directed the immediate release of the accused, if not required in any other case.

The ruling sends a clear message that in cases based purely on circumstantial evidence, the chain must be complete, consistent, and incapable of any hypothesis other than guilt. Section 106 is not a shortcut to conviction and cannot compensate for investigative shortcomings.

Date of Decision: 17 February 2026