The Supreme Court recently upheld the acquittal of a woman accused of murdering her stepmother and minor half-brother in 2011. [State of Himachal Pradesh v. Anchla @ Chanchla]

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi found that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances proving that the accused had committed the murders.

In its judgment passed on October 1, the Court found that the investigating officer had failed to explain what led the police to record the statements of a taxi driver and a hotel employee, whose accounts were later used to build the case against the accused (Anchla).

The Court said that the two witnesses appeared to have been “set up” to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused.

“It is well settled that the role of the investigating officer is to collect evidence and not to create one,” the Court observed.

It went on to explain that when the police record the statement of a person with no apparent connection to the crime without disclosing how that person emerged during the investigation, it may raise serious doubts about whether the witness was introduced to create evidence.

The case arose from the murders of the accused’s stepmother, Mithilesh Kumari, and minor half-brother, Bhupinder Singh. Their bodies were found inside their house in Himachal Pradesh's Diur on September 7, 2011. Both had been strangled.

The accused, Anchla, was Amar Singh's daughter from his first marriage. After his first wife’s death, Amar Singh married Mithilesh Kumari and Bhupinder was born from their marriage. Anchla lived in Chamba but regularly visited Mithilesh’s house.

The prosecution alleged that Mithilesh’s father had seen Anchla at the house on the evening of August 31, 2011. The house was found locked the following morning. Anchla was accused of killing the two over property that her father had purportedly bequeathed to Bhupinder.

To establish that Anchla had travelled to Diur that evening, the prosecution relied on a taxi driver who claimed to have driven her there from Chamba and brought her back after midnight. He also claimed that she had a bleeding injury on her thumb during the return journey.

A hotel employee claimed to have seen Anchla at a hotel in Chamba after she returned from Diur.

The prosecution also relied on the alleged recovery of Mithilesh’s mobile phone and a bunch of keys from Anchla’s house, as well as blood found inside the victims’ house that matched Anchla’s DNA profile.

A sessions court relied on these circumstances to convict Anchla of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on November 7, 2012. However, the Himachal Pradesh High Court overturned the conviction and acquitted her on July 28, 2014.

The State government subsequently approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the State argued that the High Court had wrongly discarded crucial evidence against Anchla and sought restoration of her conviction and sentence.

After examining the evidence, the Court noted that the investigating officer had not explained what prompted him to record the statements of the taxi driver and hotel employee.

“In the present case, PW-20( investigating officer) ducks the question and feigns ignorance as to when he recorded the statement of PW-4 ( taxi driver) and PW-18 (the hotel employee)during investigation. Further, there is no explanation as to what prompted him to record statements of PW-4 and PW-18 during investigation,” said the Court.

The Court found that neither Anchla’s disclosure statement nor the testimony of Mithilesh’s father provided any lead to the two witnesses. Anchla had not disclosed that she had travelled by taxi or stayed at a hotel, while Mithilesh’s father had not claimed that he saw her arrive in a taxi.

The Court explained why it considered the witnesses to have been set up.

“Possibility of PW-4 on his own going to the police and getting his statement recorded is remote because travelling in a taxi, or staying in a hotel, by itself is not an incriminating circumstance as to disturb a person and prompt him to report it to the police. Therefore, what prompted the investigating officer to record statements of PW-4 and PW-8 [PW-18] assumes importance, and lack of disclosure/explanation in that regard, in our view, is sufficient to consider them as witnesses set up to create evidence for constituting a chain of circumstances,” the bench said.

It also noted that the police contacted the taxi driver only after Anchla’s arrest, when they were already aware of her thumb injury. This made it more probable that he had been used as a tool to weave a story, the Court added.

It further noted that no blood was found inside the taxi despite the driver’s claim that he had provided first aid for the bleeding injury. As regards the hotel employee, no guest register or other record of Anchla’s alleged stay had been given to the police.

The Court consequently found both witnesses untrustworthy and held that their statements could not support the prosecution’s claim that Anchla had been in Diur on the relevant night.

“In conclusion, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charge against the accused,” the Court said while dismissing the State government’s appeal.

Advocates Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, Rohit Lochav, Arindam Gupta appeared for the appellant.

Advocate Sangeeta Kumar appeared for the respondent.

[Read Judgment]