New Delhi: The Supreme Court has dismissed the State of Himachal Pradesh's appeal against the acquittal of a woman accused of murdering her step-mother and step-brother. It held that the prosecution had not proved its circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, and that they did not form a complete chain. The Bench observed that the role of an investigating officer is to collect evidence and not to create it.
A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was hearing the State's appeal against the Himachal Pradesh High Court's judgment dated 28.07.2014. The High Court had set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC imposed by the Court of Session, Chamba on 07.11.2012.
On 07.09.2011, the father of the first deceased reported that she had been missing for six to seven days and that a foul odour was coming from her locked house. The police broke the lock and found the bodies of the woman and her minor son, and the autopsy found death by strangulation. The prosecution alleged that the accused killed them over property allegedly bequeathed to the minor. It relied on the accused being last seen at the house on 31.08.2011, a taxi driver and a hotel worker who placed her travelling to and from the village that night with a bleeding thumb, the recovery of keys and the deceased's mobile on her disclosure, and a DNA match between her blood and a stain on a trunk in the house.
Relying on Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471, the court said it interferes with an acquittal only where cogent evidence has been discarded on unsustainable grounds. It then found that the autopsy opinion of five to seven days did not rule out death after the night of 31.08.2011. The sole last-seen witness, the deceased's father, had improved upon his earlier statement and stayed silent for six to seven days despite living nearby, in a room of the same house.
The court's sharpest criticism was for the taxi driver and the hotel worker. The investigating officer gave no reason for recording their statements and feigned ignorance of the dates. The Bench held that why, when and in what circumstances a witness's statement is recorded is an important tool for judging whether the witness is natural or "set up to create evidence." The accused's own disclosure did not mention the taxi or the hotel, the driver admitted being called to the police station after her arrest, and there was no hotel record. Since the police already held her treatment slip, the court said they had the opportunity to weave a story about the injury.
The Bench called it a serious investigational lapse that the call records carried no tower locations and that the deceased's records were not even exhibited. These could have shown whether the two mobiles were together and whether the deceased's phone was active after 31.08.2011. On the lock, it held that the prosecution did not prove that the lock produced in court was the one broken to enter the house, as the seizure witness had seen it on the door handle and not the latch. The recovery of keys was therefore inconsequential. The recovery of the mobile was also doubtful, since it could have been planted and the accused had taken no valuables.
On the DNA evidence, the court accepted the forensic report but said it had questions, because every other stain had disintegrated, only the trunk stain gave a profile, and the control sample was never sent. It held that the accused's blood showed only that she had been there at some time, which was consistent with her being a regular visitor. Her blood was not found on the clothes of the deceased or on any material used to strangle them. The thumb injury was proved but carried little weight, as the accused had explained it and handed over the treatment slip herself. The motive was also not proved, as there was no evidence of any bequest, and the accused's sisters would equally have benefited.
Holding that neither were the incriminating circumstances proved beyond reasonable doubt nor did they form a chain excluding every hypothesis consistent with innocence, the Bench found no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Anchla @ Chanchla, Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2019 [2026 INSC 1074]
