New Delhi: A six-year-old girl went missing in 2018. She was last seen with her stepfather. He was arrested eight days later, leading police to where her charred remains were found. The Supreme Court found this evidence insufficient and acquitted him of murder. According to neighbors, no other evidence was found linking the man to the murder except that he was the last person seen with the child and that he was the one who led police to the victim’s bones. Judges Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran acquitted him, saying the investigation was botched and left many questions unanswered. “In this case, a six-year-old girl was murdered with impunity and her stepfather was jailed based on mere speculation,” the SC said. What tipped the scales in favor of stepfather Rohit Chand in the Chhattisgarh case was the peculiarity of the Supreme Court’s interpretation in an earlier judgment of the admissibility of the accused’s statement leading to the discovery of facts relevant to the crime – in this case, the recovery of the girl’s body. More than 65 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant’s statements leading to the discovery of facts relevant to a crime were admissible as evidence only while in custody. Justices Kumar and Chandran also relied on a similar interpretation used in a Calcutta High Court ruling nearly 100 years ago. Interestingly, in the 1931 judgment, the then Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court expressed anguish over the legal permissibility of relying on statements made to the police (the fact of which can only be discovered when the person is in police custody) and termed it absurd, but left it to the legislature to make appropriate amendments. Based on these decades-old judgments, the SC concluded that the evidence against Jiang Duc was weak. Judge Chandran said even if the evidence was admitted, it would not by itself find the stepfather guilty. “The defendant’s knowledge, which led to the discovery of bone remains, although inadmissible under section 27, was nevertheless admissible evidence under section 8, which is itself weak evidence. The evidence provided for in Article 8 can only provide corroboration and cannot by itself lead to a conviction. “ The judge acquitted the accused, saying: “Although the family and the police had been informed that she had gone with the accused, no complaint was made about the missing child and the fact that the accused was not questioned tipped the scales in favor of the accused… It is also relevant that there is no specific time of death as the incriminating body has not yet been found. Therefore, we cannot uphold the conviction of the accused and a presumption of guilt must be drawn against him.”“
