Supreme Court: Section 8 Evidence Is Only Corroborative, Insufficient by Itself for Criminal Conviction

 

INTRODUCTION

Recently, the Supreme Court of India held that evidence admissible under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is corroborative in nature and cannot form the basis of a conviction itself. It can, at best, supplement other circumstances but cannot independently sustain a conviction, especially in situations where investigation lapses and gaps in the prosecution chain raise reasonable doubt. 

BACKGROUND

The statement came to light through the case of Rohit Jangde v. The State of Chhattisgarh, wherein a six-year-old girl was murdered, and her stepfather (accused) was incarcerated on mere conjecture. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentenced the accused on three circumstances. First being the last seen theory propounded through a neighbour. The second being the ashes and the bony remnants from the charred remains of the child, having been recovered on the information supplied by the accused. And lastly, the skull and teeth recovered from a canal, which had a DNA match with the biological parents of the girl child. The high court also emphasised that no explanation was offered by the accused regarding his knowledge of the location from which the bony remnants of the deceased were recovered. 

KEY POINTS

1. The bench relied on the judicial precedent of Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it was held that even when a recovery does not satisfy the requirements of Section 27, because the accused was not in police custody when the statement was made, it may still be admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Act. However, the bench emphasised that evidence under Section 8 serves only a corroborative purpose and by itself, does not sustain a conviction. 
2. It was observed that the alterations in the official records relating to the date and time of arrest cast serious doubt on whether the accused was actually in custody during the relevant period. This inconsistency weakened the prosecution’s last seen theory, as the reconstructed timeline indicated that the alleged incident may have taken place while the accused was already in custody.
3. The Court stated that a defective investigation does not automatically benefit an accused, but a conviction cannot stand unless the evidence independently proves the guilt to be beyond any reasonable doubt. 
4. The court found the last seen theory argued by the prosecution to be unreliable. The alleged eyewitness of the incident had disclosed the information several days later, even though the family and the police were aware that the child had left with the accused earlier. Despite this knowledge, no complaints were lodged immediately, and the FIR was registered after several days. The bench held that the circumstances undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative. 
5. The bench examined the alleged recovery of bones based on the statement of disclosure by the accused. It was observed that the memorandum showed the statement was recorded even before the accused was arrested. The disclosure did not satisfy the statutory requirements and could not be admitted under the provision since Section 27 requires disclosure to be made while the accused is in police custody.
6. Relying on precedents, the Court held that such evidence may still be admissible as conduct by virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The bench clarified that the conduct evidence, even if considered as admissible, merely forms a link in the chain of circumstances, and this cannot establish guilt by itself. It further noted that while knowledge of a discovered fact may carry incriminating value, it does not necessarily demonstrate a direct nexus with the commission of the offence. The knowledge of the accused of the location of the remains could not, by itself, establish culpability. 
7. The bench found that only two circumstances stood proved. Firstly. the death of the child and secondly, the accused’s knowledge of the recovery site. The corpus delicti was not fully recovered, and the time of death was also not established conclusively. The prolonged delay in reporting the disappearance, with the failure to question the accused during that period, further deepened the doubt.
8. The Court held that these shortcomings were fatal to the prosecution’s case, as they prevented the establishment of a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the accused’s guilt.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed in establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and stated that the reliance on conduct evidence without corroborative circumstances was legally insufficient. Thus, the Hon’ble Court allowed the appeal and the order of the Trial Court, convicting the accused and the High Court, affirming the same, was set aside. 

CONCLUSION

To conclude, the present judgment reinforced that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. Section 8 of the Evidence Act is only supplementary and must be backed by a solid chain of corroborative circumstances. Where investigations are flawed, timelines are uncertain, witnesses are unreliable, and forensic evidence is incomplete, courts cannot uphold convictions based merely on conduct or partial disclosures. 

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”

WRITTEN BY: STUTI ANVI