Parties: ROHIT JANGDE VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Lawyers: CHANDRIKA PRASAD MISHRA
Judges: MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR, MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Judgment By: MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Case Number: 15058/2024
Quick Summary: A six-year-old girl's murder case in Chhattisgarh took an unexpected turn when the accused, her stepfather, Rohit Jangde, was released because of mistakes made during the investigation. The court found problems in how the evidence was collected and handled, leading to Rohit Jangde's release.
On October 5, 2018, a family argument in Kabirdhan District, Chhattisgarh, got worse when Rohit Jangde's second wife was attacked and went to her parents' home. Her mother went to pick up her grandchildren, only to find one child missing. A missing person report was filed on October 11, 2018.
Rohit Jangde was said to have been arrested on October 6, 2018, and let go on October 8, 2018. However, mistakes in the arrest records made it unclear when exactly he was arrested, which caused problems for the story that he was the last person seen with the child. This made the case more complicated.
"The change in the arrest date is clear from the documents, which makes us doubt when Rohit Jangde was actually arrested."
On October 13, 2018, based on a confession, police found burnt bones and a skull in a field and canal. But Rohit Jangde's confession was made when he wasn't in police custody, so it couldn't be used as evidence.
DNA tests showed that the vertebrae and teeth matched the biological parents, but not the skull. This partial match added to the uncertainty, leaving doubt about Rohit Jangde's guilt.
Judges Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran decided that the evidence wasn't strong enough for a conviction. Rohit Jangde was given the benefit of the doubt because of the investigation's mistakes, like the delay in filing the missing report and unclear arrest records.
"We cannot confirm Rohit Jangde's conviction, and he must be given the benefit of doubt."
Rohit Jangde was set free because the evidence against him was not strong enough, mainly due to mistakes made during the investigation. The court emphasized the importance of thorough investigations to solve such cases effectively.
