Unexplained Witnesses, No Tower Data: SC Upholds Acquittal

Unexplained Recording of Convenient Witnesses Dents Credibility: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Double Murder

The Supreme Court dismissed Himachal Pradesh's appeal against the acquittal of a woman accused of strangling her step-mother and minor step-brother. The last-seen witness had improved on his police statement, the investigating officer never explained why or when he recorded the taxi driver and hotel worker, tower locations were never collected, and a DNA match on a trunk showed only that the accused, a regular visitor, had been there at some point.

Key holdings

Where an investigating officer cannot explain why or when he recorded a witness with no reason to come forward, the witness may be treated as set up to create evidence (paras 41-46).

Failure to collect mobile tower locations in a last-seen case is a serious investigational lapse (paras 51-54).

Recovery of keys means little unless the lock produced in court is proved to be the one that locked the door (paras 58-65).

A DNA match in a house the accused regularly visited does not prove her presence at the time of the crime (para 79).

Absence of motive matters where the other circumstances are not conclusive (para 81).

Brief Facts

The bodies of the accused's step-mother and minor step-brother were found in their locked house at Diur on 07.09.2011; both had been strangled 5 to 7 days before the autopsy (paras 2, 30-31). The prosecution said the accused was last seen there on 31.08.2011, travelled back by taxi with a bleeding thumb, led police to the deceased's keys and mobile, and that her blood matched a stain on a trunk in the room (para 28). The trial court convicted her under Section 302 IPC; the Himachal Pradesh High Court acquitted her in 2014, and the State appealed (paras 1, 11-13, 17).

Court's Findings

Reiterating that an acquittal is disturbed only where the view taken was not a possible one or relevant evidence was unjustifiably discarded (paras 22-25), the Court found the chain incomplete. The father's last-seen account improved on his Section 161 statement, he waited 6-7 days despite living close by, and the medical window did not rule out death after 01.09.2011 (paras 31, 34-35, 55-57). The investigating officer could not say why or when he recorded the taxi driver and hotel worker; where a witness has no reason to come forward, that silence may show the witness was set up, since the officer's role is to collect evidence, not create it (paras 40-46). Not collecting the tower locations of the two mobiles was a serious lapse (paras 51-54). The broken lock was not shown to be the one produced in court, so the key recovery was inconsequential, and the mobile recovery was doubtful (paras 58-68). The DNA match showed only presence at some point; her blood was not on the deceased's clothes or the cloth allegedly used to strangle them (para 79). No motive was proved (paras 81-82).

Legal Principle

An acquittal is reversed only if it is not a possible view. In a circumstantial case, an unexplained decision to record witnesses who had no reason to approach the police, improved last-seen testimony and uncollected tower data can each break the chain, and a DNA match proving only past presence is not conclusive.

Precedents Relied Upon

Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and another (2022) 3 SCC 471
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 24, 25
Three-Judge Bench summary of when this Court may entertain an appeal against acquittal and interfere: only where the High Court's approach or reasoning is perverse, or the acquittal would cause a gross miscarriage of justice.
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta (2012) 1 SCC 602
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 22
If the view taken by the High Court is one of the possible views and its reasoning is not perverse, an acquittal is not disturbed merely because another view is possible.
State of M.P. v. Bacchudas alias Balram and others (2007) 9 SCC 135
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 23
The appellate court may re-appreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal but interferes only for compelling and substantial reasons, such as relevant and convincing evidence being unjustifiably discarded.

View all precedents (5)

Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952) 2 SCC 71
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 27
In a case resting on circumstantial evidence the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive in nature, and form a chain excluding every hypothesis except guilt.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 27
Followed the Hanumant test for conviction on circumstantial evidence; the chain must be so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence.

Unexplained Recording of Convenient Witnesses Dents Credibility: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Double Murder

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

Supreme Court Grants Bail in 27 kg Ganja Case, Citing Custody Period, Slow Trial and Article 21

Supreme Court Acquits Man in Child Rape-Murder Case: Recovered Bones Were Male, Last-Seen Evidence Unproved

Disputed Overpayment Cannot Be Recovered From Bills Under Other Contracts Without Hearing: Supreme Court