Court Upholds High Court Acquittal of Anchla @ Chanchla; Observes Suspicion, However Strong, Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh challenging the acquittal of Anchla @ Chanchla in a double murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime.
A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2019 titled The State of Himachal Pradesh vs Anchla @ Chanchla and upheld the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh which had acquitted the accused.
The Supreme Court examined the entire evidence relied upon by the prosecution, including the alleged last seen circumstance, recovery of keys and mobile phone, DNA evidence, alleged motive, witness testimony and investigation conducted by the police. After analysing the evidence, the Court held that although the deaths were homicidal in nature, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was responsible for the crime.
Background of the Case
The case arose out of the murder of Mithilesh Kumari (D-1) and her minor son Bhupinder Singh (D-2). According to the prosecution, Mithilesh Kumari and her son were residing at village Diur, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. The prosecution alleged that on 31.08.2011, the accused Anchla @ Chanchla visited the house of the deceased along with her daughter. It was alleged that the accused stayed there and later left the place with the deceased persons.
Thereafter, the deceased persons were not seen alive. Information regarding their absence was given, and subsequently the dead bodies were discovered from the house. The prosecution alleged that the accused had committed the murders and thereafter attempted to conceal the evidence.
Discovery of Dead Bodies and Registration of Case
As per the prosecution case, on 07.09.2011, information was given by Bhagi Ram (PW-1) regarding the disappearance of Mithilesh Kumari and her son. When the house was opened, the dead bodies of both deceased persons were found. The prosecution alleged that both deceased persons had been strangulated.
The post-mortem examination conducted by the doctors concluded that the deaths were homicidal in nature. On the basis of the information and investigation, criminal proceedings were initiated against the accused.
Prosecution Case Against the Accused
The prosecution case was based entirely upon circumstantial evidence. There was no direct eyewitness account of the alleged murders. The prosecution relied upon several circumstances, including:
- Alleged last seen evidence;
- Presence of the accused with the deceased before their death;
- Evidence of taxi driver regarding transportation;
- Evidence of hotel employee;
- Recovery of keys and mobile phone;
- DNA evidence;
- Alleged injury on the thumb of the accused;
- Alleged motive relating to property.
The prosecution sought to establish that all these circumstances together formed a complete chain proving the guilt of the accused.
Trial Court Convicts the Accused
The Trial Court, after considering the evidence, convicted Anchla @ Chanchla. The Trial Court relied upon various circumstances, including:
- The homicidal death of the deceased persons;
- The accused allegedly being last seen with the deceased;
- The alleged taxi journey;
- Recovery of keys and mobile phone;
- DNA evidence;
- Injury found on the accused.
On the basis of these circumstances, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused.
High Court Acquits the Accused
The accused challenged the conviction before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The High Court re-examined the evidence and found several shortcomings in the prosecution case. The High Court observed doubts regarding:
- The reliability of the last seen theory;
- Improvement made by PW-1 during evidence;
- Credibility of taxi driver PW-4 and hotel witness PW-18;
- Recovery of keys;
- Reliability of DNA evidence;
- Proof of alleged motive.
The High Court therefore acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State of Himachal Pradesh approached the Supreme Court.
Appeal Against Acquittal Before Supreme Court
The State argued before the Supreme Court that the High Court had incorrectly appreciated the evidence. It was submitted that the circumstances proved by the prosecution, when taken together, clearly established the involvement of the accused. The State relied upon:
- The accused being last seen with the deceased;
- Recovery of articles;
- DNA evidence;
- Injury on the accused;
- Motive relating to property.
The State contended that the Trial Court had rightly convicted the accused and the High Court had adopted an overly technical approach while granting acquittal.
Supreme Court Explains Scope of Appeal Against Acquittal
Before examining the evidence, the Supreme Court considered the legal principles governing appeals against acquittal. The Court observed that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The appellate court can interfere with an acquittal only when the view taken by the lower court is unreasonable or perverse. Where two possible views emerge from the evidence, the view favouring the accused must ordinarily be accepted. The Court observed that if the High Court’s view is a possible view based on evidence, interference by the Supreme Court is not justified.
Law Relating to Circumstantial Evidence
The Supreme Court reiterated that where a case is based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances relied upon must:
- Be fully established;
- Be consistent only with the guilt of the accused;
- Form a complete chain;
- Exclude every reasonable possibility of innocence.
The Court observed that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. Keeping these principles in mind, the Supreme Court examined each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution.
Last Seen Theory Examined by Supreme Court
The prosecution mainly relied upon the allegation that the accused was last seen with Mithilesh Kumari and her son. The Supreme Court examined the testimony of PW-1. The Court noted that PW-1 had made improvements from his earlier statement. The witness was not consistent regarding the presence of the accused with the deceased persons.The Court found that the evidence did not conclusively establish that the accused had left the house along with the deceased persons.
The Court observed that merely showing the presence of the accused at some point of time was not sufficient unless the prosecution established that the accused was last seen with the deceased immediately before the crime.
Evidence of Taxi Driver and Hotel Witness
The prosecution relied upon the testimony of a taxi driver and a hotel employee. The taxi driver was examined as PW-4, while the hotel witness was examined as PW-18. The prosecution claimed that these witnesses supported the movement of the accused after the incident. However, the Supreme Court found several doubts regarding their testimony.
The Court observed that:
- Their statements were recorded after considerable delay;
- Their presence was not satisfactorily explained;
- Their evidence did not inspire confidence.
The Court observed that these witnesses appeared to have been introduced to create a link in the prosecution story. Therefore, their evidence could not provide reliable corroboration.
Failure to Collect and Prove Call Detail Records
The Supreme Court also examined the investigation relating to mobile phone records. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to collect and present important evidence regarding call detail records and tower location. Such evidence could have helped establish the movement and location of the accused.
However, the investigation did not properly collect or prove such material. The Court considered this as a deficiency affecting the prosecution case.
Recovery of Keys and Mobile Phone
The prosecution relied upon recovery of keys allegedly connected with the house and a mobile phone. The Supreme Court carefully examined this circumstance. The Court found doubts regarding the recovery proceedings. The identification of the lock and the connection of recovered keys with the house were not properly established.
Similarly, recovery of the mobile phone did not provide a conclusive link connecting the accused with the offence. The Court held that these recoveries did not advance the prosecution case.
DNA Evidence Considered by Supreme Court
DNA evidence was another important circumstance relied upon by the prosecution. The prosecution relied upon the fact that DNA of the accused matched with bloodstains found on a cabinet/trunk. However, the Supreme Court observed that this evidence was not sufficient to establish guilt.
The Court noted that the accused had earlier visited the house. Therefore, presence of the accused’s blood at the place could not conclusively establish that he committed the murders. The DNA evidence only showed presence at some point of time and did not establish the accused’s involvement in the crime.
Accordingly, the Court did not treat DNA evidence as conclusive against the accused.
Thumb Injury of Accused
The prosecution also relied upon an injury allegedly found on the thumb of the accused. The argument was that the injury was connected with the struggle during the commission of offence. However, the Supreme Court observed that this circumstance depended upon the testimony of PW-4, whose evidence had already been found unreliable. The accused had also provided an explanation regarding the injury.
Therefore, the injury could not independently establish guilt.
Motive Not Established
The prosecution alleged that the accused had a motive relating to property. However, the Supreme Court found that the alleged motive was not proved through reliable evidence. The Court observed that there was no convincing evidence establishing that the accused would gain any benefit from the alleged property dispute. Therefore, motive could not be treated as a strong circumstance against the accused.
Supreme Court’s Final Findings
After examining the entire evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances. The Court observed:
- Homicidal death was established;
- However, involvement of the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt;
- The last seen theory was doubtful;
- Supporting witnesses were unreliable;
- Recovery evidence was insufficient;
- DNA evidence was not conclusive;
- Motive was not established.
The Court held that the High Court had taken a possible view while acquitting the accused. Therefore, no interference was required.
Final Order of Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The acquittal granted by the High Court in favour of Anchla @ Chanchla was upheld. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court judgment in The State of Himachal Pradesh vs Anchla @ Chanchla reiterates the importance of strict standards required in cases based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The Court acknowledged that the deaths were homicidal, but also emphasised that establishing the occurrence of a crime and establishing the guilt of a particular accused are two separate requirements. The prosecution was required to prove a complete chain of circumstances linking the accused with the offence. Since important links such as last seen evidence, recovery, DNA evidence, motive and witness testimony were found insufficient, the Court refused to restore the conviction.
The judgment reinforces the settled principle that criminal courts cannot convict merely on suspicion. Even in serious offences, guilt must be established through reliable, legally admissible and complete evidence.