Section 313 CrPC Statement Cannot Cure Incomplete Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that when the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is incomplete and does not inspire confidence, the statement of an accused recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)] cannot be used against him, particularly when the other evidence is also not satisfactory enough to point to his guilt.

Section 313 of the CrPC empowers a trial court to examine an accused person directly so they can explain any incriminating evidence or circumstances appearing against them during an inquiry or trial.

A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar said that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the failure of an accused to offer a reasonable explanation can provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances only when the prosecution has otherwise established the incriminating circumstances against him.

The Bench explained that the accused's silence or failure to provide a reasonable explanation may act as an additional link to complete an already established chain of circumstances. However, it cannot shift the burden of proof onto the accused in a criminal trial.

“Thus, the accused’s silence or failure to provide any reasonable explanation can merely act as an additional link that would complete the chain. This, however, would not shift the burden of proof on an accused in a criminal trial,” the Bench said, relying on Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan (2013).

Court had held in that case that an adverse inference can be drawn against an accused only when the incriminating material has been fully established and the accused is unable to furnish any explanation for it. At the same time, an accused has a right to remain silent and cannot be compelled to become a witness against himself.

Court set aside the concurrent conviction of appellant Santosh Gurung under Sections 376(2)(i), 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code [corresponding to Sections 64(2), 103, 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)], as well as his conviction under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. It also set aside the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him.

The prosecution alleged that on November 6, 2013, Gurung took away his minor niece and throttled her to death after sexually assaulting her. A missing complaint was lodged on November 12, 2013, while the FIR was registered on May 13, 2014.

On an overall consideration of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, the Bench said the evidence was “woefully short” of pointing to the appellant’s guilt.

Court noted that the witnesses, including the victim's mother, were not certain that Gurung was the last person seen with the victim and had themselves expressed doubts on this aspect.

The alleged discovery of a shawl under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [corresponding to proviso to Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)], was also made from a place ordinarily visible to others. The Bench said the discovery, therefore, had to be viewed with caution.

Court further noted that the DNA report clearly stated that the bone extracts were of male origin, although the victim was female. The bones also did not match the blood samples of the victim's mother and sister. The Forensic Science Laboratory report, therefore, did not advance the prosecution's case.

A further doubt arose over the brown shawl allegedly brought by Gurung from his mother. His mother had denied that the shawl belonged to her.

“In other words, the chain of circumstances has not been formed on the basis of the prosecution evidence,” Court said, holding that Gurung's statement under Section 313 of the Code could not be treated as an additional link in that chain.

Court said the sessions court had failed to notice these material factors, which were available on record, and had therefore erred in convicting Gurung on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The Sikkim High Court also failed to notice the infirmities in the prosecution's case, it added.

“The guilt of the appellant has not been established beyond reasonable doubt,” the Bench said, adding that the prosecution evidence created a strong doubt about his involvement in the offence.

“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,” the Bench said.

Giving Gurung the benefit of doubt, Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the sessions court and the Sikkim High Court.

It directed that Gurung be set free forthwith, if he was not required in any other case.

Case Title: Santosh Gurung Vs State of Sikkim

Bench: Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar 

Date of Judgment: October 1, 2026