Court finds taxi driver and hotel employee were “set up” as witnesses; prosecution fails to establish complete chain of circumstances
NEW DELHI, OCT 5 :
The Supreme Court has reiterated that an Investigating Officer (IO) is required to collect evidence and cannot manufacture evidence to build a criminal case, while upholding the acquittal of a woman accused in a double-murder case in Himachal Pradesh.
A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed the State of Himachal Pradesh’s appeal and affirmed the High Court judgment acquitting the accused in the murder of a woman and her son at their residence in Diur, Himachal Pradesh, in 2011.
The case involved the accused, who was the stepdaughter of the deceased woman and stepsister of the deceased son. The prosecution alleged that she had travelled from Chamba to Diur on the night of the incident and was responsible for the murders.
The prosecution relied, among other circumstances, on the statements of a taxi driver and a hotel employee. The taxi driver allegedly transported the accused between Chamba and Diur, while the hotel employee claimed to have seen her staying at a hotel after her return.
However, the Supreme Court found serious shortcomings in the manner in which these witnesses were introduced during the investigation.
The Court noted that the Investigating Officer failed to explain why, when and under what circumstances the statements of the two witnesses were recorded. There was also no material showing that the accused herself had disclosed her taxi journey or hotel stay during her disclosure statement.
“Role of IO Is to Collect Evidence, Not Create It”
The Supreme Court stressed that an investigating agency cannot manufacture a chain of circumstances by introducing witnesses without explaining the circumstances that led investigators to them.
The Court observed that when there is no apparent reason for recording the statement of a particular person, and the person himself had no reason to approach the police with information, the circumstances surrounding the recording of the statement become crucial.
According to the Court, an investigating officer can legitimately examine another person if information obtained from an earlier witness indicates that the person may possess relevant information. However, where there is no such apparent basis, the unexplained recording of the statement can raise a serious suspicion that the witness was “set up to create evidence.”
Taxi Driver, Hotel Employee Treated as Created Witnesses
In the present case, the Court found that the prosecution could not satisfactorily explain how the investigating officer came to record the statements of the taxi driver and hotel employee.
The Bench observed that merely travelling in a taxi or staying at a hotel is not, by itself, an incriminating circumstance that would ordinarily prompt such persons to approach the police.
The hotel employee’s claim was also weakened by the absence of supporting material such as a guest list or visitor entry corroborating the alleged stay.
The Court consequently found that the statements of the two witnesses appeared to have been recorded for the purpose of creating a chain of circumstances against the accused.
Other Evidence Also Failed to Complete Prosecution Case
The Supreme Court also considered other aspects of the prosecution evidence, including DNA evidence, recovery of keys and a mobile phone, and other circumstantial material.
The Court noted that the DNA evidence did not establish the accused’s presence at the crime scene on the date of the murders and that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and reliable chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the offences.
The Trial Court had originally convicted the accused for murder. The High Court subsequently overturned the conviction and acquitted her. The State challenged that acquittal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found no ground to interfere with the High Court’s decision and dismissed the State’s appeal, thereby upholding the acquittal.
The judgment was delivered in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Anchla @ Chanchla, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1014.(KNC)