Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal of Stepdaughter in Double Murder Despite DNA Match; Witnesses "Set Up to Create Evidence", Court Flags Suppression of Call Records
Updated: Oct 7
The Supreme Court of India on October 1, 2026 dismissed the State of Himachal Pradesh's appeal and upheld the acquittal of a woman accused of strangling her stepmother and minor stepbrother, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi found that two key witnesses appeared to have been "set up to create evidence", that the police never collected mobile tower locations, and that even a forensic DNA match between the accused's blood and a stain at the crime scene could not clinch the case.
Case at a Glance
Case Title: The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Anchla @ Chanchla
Citation: 2026 INSC 1074
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2019
Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi (judgment authored by Justice Misra)
What Was Challenged: High Court of Himachal Pradesh judgment dated 28.07.2014 acquitting the accused of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Trial Court: Court of Session, Chamba, Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2011 (conviction dated 07.11.2012)
Date of Judgment: October 1, 2026
A Locked House, Two Bodies and a Missing Week
On 07.09.2011, a father reported that his daughter had been missing for six to seven days and that her house was locked and emitting a foul odour. Police broke the lock and found two bodies: the daughter, Mithilesh Kumari, and her minor son, Bhupinder Singh. The autopsy found strangulation, with death estimated at five to seven days earlier.
Suspicion fell on Anchla alias Chanchla, the daughter of Mithilesh's late husband from his first marriage. The prosecution alleged she killed her stepmother and stepbrother to grab property her father had allegedly bequeathed to the boy. The Trial Court convicted her under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court reversed the conviction. The State then came to the Supreme Court.
The Prosecution's Chain of Circumstances
The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence: the accused was last seen at the house on 31.08.2011; a taxi driver and a hotel worker placed her at the village and back in Chamba that night with a bleeding thumb; keys and the deceased's mobile phone were recovered on her disclosure statement; and the DNA profile from her blood matched dried blood scraped from a trunk in the victim's room.
The Last Seen Witness Who "Improved" His Story
The Court held it was "unsafe" to rely on the father (PW-1) alone. In court he said he saw the accused talking to the child, but his earlier police statement said nothing of this. He also stayed silent for six to seven days despite living and running a shop next to the house, and admitted the victim had given him a room in that very house. The Court observed this created an impression that he was "either suppressing some vital information or telling a lie."
The Taxi Driver and the Hotel Worker: Witnesses "Set Up"?
This is the most striking part of the judgment. The Court noted that the investigating officer never explained what prompted him to record the statements of the taxi driver (PW-4) and the hotel worker (PW-18), and "despite repeated questions" would not say when he recorded them. The Court reasoned that travelling in a taxi or staying in a hotel is not an incriminating act that would push a person to approach the police, and concluded the two appeared to be witnesses "set up to create evidence".
On the settled role of investigators, the Court said:
It is well settled that the role of the investigating officer is to collect evidence and not to create one.
Further doubts: the taxi driver noticed no blood in his vehicle despite treating a bleeding thumb, the hotel kept no guest record, and it made little sense for the accused to stay in a hotel in Chamba when she lived there. The driver's statement was also recorded only after her arrest, when police already held the hospital slip showing her thumb injury.
The Call Records the Police Never Fully Produced
The Court called the failure to collect mobile tower locations "a serious investigational lapse". The Call Detail Record of the deceased's phone was not even exhibited in evidence. These records could have shown whether the two phones were together, and whether the victim's phone was active after 31.08.2011, which would have contradicted the father's claim that it was switched off.
Summarising the issue, the Court said the suppression of this material creates an impression that the prosecution is suppressing vital information.
The Lock That Was Never Proved to Be the Lock
Keys were recovered on the accused's disclosure, and forensic analysis showed they opened the seized lock. But the witness who identified the lock in court said it was on the door handle, not on the latch that secured the door. The Sub-Inspector who watched the lock being broken did not identify the court exhibit as that lock, and the investigating officer was not present when it was broken. The Court held it was not proved that the broken lock and the lock sent to the laboratory were the same, rendering the recovery of keys "inconsequential". It also found it unnatural for the accused to take away the keys, or lock the door at all, when she lived elsewhere.
The recovery of the deceased's mobile phone from the accused's house was likewise held doubtful, since a phone can always be planted and no complete call record with tower location was produced.
The DNA Match That Did Not Settle It
The Court accepted the forensic report as it stood, even though it admitted being puzzled that every other bloodstained article from the room had degraded beyond testing while one stain on a trunk yielded a clean profile. The control sample from the cabinet was never sent for testing, and the forensic expert was not cross-examined.
Even so, the Court held the match proved only that the accused was present at some point in time:
Presence of blood of the accused in the room at best indicates that at some point in time the accused was present there.
Since the prosecution itself said she visited regularly, earlier bleeding could not be ruled out. Her blood was also not found on the victims' clothes or on anything used to strangle them.
The Thumb Injury and the Missing Motive
The thumb injury was proved, but carried "little weight" because the accused had offered an explanation (her hand was crushed in a car door while travelling to Mani Mahesh) and had herself handed over the hospital slip. On motive, there was no evidence of any bequest in favour of the child, and since the father had five daughters, the accused alone would not have benefited from the child's death.
Limits on Overturning an Acquittal
The Court reiterated that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence, and that interference is justified only where the High Court's view is perverse, cogent evidence is discarded on unsustainable grounds, or there is a gross miscarriage of justice. It relied on State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram, State of M.P. v. Bacchudas and the three-Judge Bench decision in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022) 3 SCC 471. Applying Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, it held the circumstances neither stood proved nor formed a complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence.
What This Means Going Forward
The judgment is a strong reminder to investigators and trial courts on three points. First, the reasons why a witness's statement was recorded, and when, are relevant to credibility. Second, call records without tower locations, and unexhibited records, weaken the prosecution rather than help it. Third, scientific evidence such as DNA proves presence, not guilt, unless the surrounding chain is secure. It is also a useful authority for defence lawyers on attacking convenient witnesses and for prosecutors on the discipline needed in proving seizures and recoveries.
Build a Career in Criminal Litigation and Courtroom Practice
Circumstantial evidence, last seen theory, appeals against acquittal and scientific evidence are the everyday tools of a criminal litigator. Learn them hands-on in ILW's Professional Certificate Course in Legal Drafting, Court Practice and AI for Lawyers, which covers criminal law under BNS and BNSS, evidence, courtroom advocacy and drafting.
Stay Updated on Landmark Judgments
Join ILW's WhatsApp Channel for daily judgment updates: Click here to join
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Anchla @ Chanchla?
The Court dismissed the State's appeal on October 1, 2026 and upheld the High Court's acquittal of the accused in a double murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Why did the Supreme Court doubt the taxi driver and hotel worker?
The investigating officer gave no explanation for why or when their statements were recorded, and the Court concluded they appeared to be witnesses set up to create evidence. The hotel also had no guest record.
3. Did the DNA match not prove the accused was the killer?
No. The Court held the match showed only that the accused was present in the room at some point. She was a regular visitor, and her blood was not found on the victims or on any item used in the strangulation.
4. When can the Supreme Court overturn an acquittal?
Only where the High Court's view is perverse, cogent evidence was rejected on unsustainable grounds, or the acquittal causes a gross miscarriage of justice. If two views are possible, the view favouring the accused is preferred.
5. Why were call detail records important in this case?
Tower locations could have shown whether the accused and the deceased were together, and whether the deceased's phone was active after 31.08.2011. The prosecution neither collected this data nor exhibited the deceased's record, which the Court called a serious investigational lapse.
Keywords: Supreme Court of India, Anchla alias Chanchla, circumstantial evidence, appeal against acquittal, last seen together theory, DNA evidence murder case, Call Detail Record tower location, witness set up to create evidence, Section 302 Indian Penal Code, Manoj Misra, Vijay Bishnoi, 2026 INSC 1074
Case Title: The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Anchla @ Chanchla
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2019
Comments