Back
Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Double Murder, Says Investigating Officer Cannot
A Caution Against Creating Evidence
In a significant ruling reinforcing the boundaries of criminal investigation, the upheld the acquittal of a woman convicted for the double murder of her stepmother and half-brother, observing that an investigating officer's role is to , not to create it. The bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case and that key witnesses appeared to have been "set up" to manufacture a .
The Case Background
The case involved the murder of Mithilesh Kumari (D-1) and her minor son Bhupinder Singh (D-2) in at their home in Diur, Himachal Pradesh. The respondent-accused, Anchla @ Chanchla, was the stepdaughter of the deceased woman. The trial court convicted her under , relying on including , recovery of keys and a mobile phone, and a DNA match from blood stains at the crime scene. The overturned the conviction, finding the evidence unreliable. The state appealed to the Supreme Court.
Witnesses Set Up?
The prosecution's case heavily depended on the testimonies of a taxi driver (PW-4) and a hotel worker (PW-18) to establish the accused's presence near the crime scene. The taxi driver claimed he drove the accused from Chamba to Diur and back on the night of the incident, noticing a bleeding injury on her hand. The hotel worker stated he saw her at a hotel later that night. However, the investigating officer (PW-20) failed to explain why, when, or under what circumstances he recorded the statements of these witnesses. The court found this omission fatal.
Supreme Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court emphasized that an investigating officer may legitimately record statements of individuals who are or possess relevant information. However, when there is no apparent reason for a person to approach the police with incriminating information, the officer must disclose what prompted the recording of such a statement.
“ It is well settled that the role of the investigating officer is to and not to create one. Where there is no occasion for the investigating officer to record statement of a person, or for that person to impart information to the police, yet, the police proceeds to record his statement without narrating the circumstance in which it was considered necessary to record his statement, a serious doubt arises as to whether that witness has been set up to ,” the judgment authored by Justice Manoj Misra observed.
The court noted that traveling in a taxi or staying at a hotel are not inherently incriminating acts that would prompt a witness to spontaneously report them. The absence of any explanation from the investigating officer cast serious doubt on the credibility of these witnesses.
The court also found other circumstances weak. The recovery of keys and the mobile phone was not convincingly proved, as the lock from the door was not adequately identified. The DNA match, while a relevant fact, was not conclusive in the absence of proof of the accused's presence at the specific time of the crime, especially given her regular visits to the house. The motive—allegedly to inherit property—was also not established.
Key Observations
The judgment provided critical guidance for future criminal investigations:
“ …where a person is not even aware that the information which he is possessed of is incriminating against some person, there is no likelihood of that person reporting that information to the police. In such circumstances, what propels the investigating officer to record his statement becomes important, and failure to disclose the reason may dent the credibility of that witness as it may reasonably be inferred that the said witness is one who has been set up. ”
The court further clarified that even if the investigating officer picks up clues from earlier statements to approach a new witness, the lack of a palpable reason to believe that witness possesses relevant information raises a legitimate suspicion.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the incriminating circumstances , and the was incomplete. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused was upheld. The judgment serves as a stern reminder that investigations must be conducted fairly and evidence collected organically, not manufactured.
This ruling is expected to influence how courts scrutinize witness testimonies in cases, particularly where the investigating agency fails to justify its choice of witnesses.
