Investigating Officer Must Not Create Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal
The Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal of a woman in a double murder case. The Court stressed that an Investigating Officer must collect evidence, not manufacture it. The ruling addressed concerns that the Investigating Officer Created Evidence by introducing witnesses without explaining how they entered the investigation.
A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi found serious gaps in the prosecution case. It particularly questioned the testimonies of a taxi driver and a hotel employee. The Court said the circumstances suggested that investigators had “set up” the witnesses to create evidence.
Double Murder Case in Himachal Pradesh
The case concerned the 2011 murders of a woman, identified as D-1, and her son, D-2. The murders took place at their residence in Diur, Himachal Pradesh.
The respondent-accused was the stepdaughter of D-1 and stepsister of D-2. The prosecution alleged that she travelled from Chamba to Diur on the night of the murders. It claimed that she committed the offences.
The prosecution primarily relied on PW-4, a taxi driver, and PW-18, a hotel employee.
Prosecution Relied on Taxi Driver and Hotel Employee
According to the prosecution, the taxi driver transported the accused between Chamba and Diur on the night of the incident.
The prosecution also claimed that the accused returned to Chamba and stayed at a hotel. The hotel employee allegedly noticed a bleeding injury on her hand.
Investigators relied on these circumstances to connect the accused with the murders.
The prosecution also cited the recovery of keys and a mobile phone. It relied on the presence of the accused’s blood/DNA in a room belonging to one of the deceased. It also alleged a motive connected with the deceased’s property.
The accused denied the allegations.
Trial Court Convicts, High Court Acquits
The Trial Court convicted the accused of murder.
She challenged the conviction before the High Court. The High Court overturned the Trial Court’s decision and acquitted her.
The State of Himachal Pradesh then approached the Supreme Court and challenged the acquittal. However, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision.
Supreme Court Questions Witness Statements
In the judgment authored by Justice Manoj Misra, the Supreme Court closely examined how investigators identified the taxi driver and hotel employee.
The Investigating Officer did not adequately explain what led him to record their statements. The Court considered this omission significant.
The Bench noted that neither person was a natural witness to the murders. The investigation also failed to establish why or how the police approached them.
This raised doubts about whether investigators had introduced the witnesses merely to build the prosecution case.
The Court observed:
“It is well settled that the role of the investigating officer is to collect evidence and not to create one.”
Investigators Cannot Manufacture Circumstantial Evidence
The Supreme Court stressed that an Investigating Officer must gather evidence that naturally emerges during an investigation.
Investigators may question people who witnessed the crime or possess relevant information. They may also examine people connected to the victim or accused.
Police can identify relevant individuals through mobile phone Call Detail Records (CDRs). Information may also emerge from a disclosure statement made by an accused.
However, investigators must explain how an otherwise unrelated witness became relevant to the case.
Why the Source of Information Matters
The Court said the source of information becomes especially important when a witness does not know that the information they possess could incriminate another person.
Such a person may have no reason to independently approach the police. Therefore, investigators should explain what prompted them to record that person’s statement.
In this case, the prosecution failed to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the taxi driver and hotel employee.
The unexplained introduction of these witnesses weakened the prosecution’s circumstantial case. The Court found serious doubt about the manner in which investigators developed the evidence.
Supreme Court Affirms Acquittal
The Supreme Court found no sufficient reason to overturn the High Court’s acquittal. It held that investigators cannot create a chain of circumstances by introducing witnesses without explaining the basis for their examination.
The case therefore illustrates why allegations that an Investigating Officer Created Evidence require close judicial scrutiny. Investigators must collect evidence that emerges during an inquiry rather than manufacture material to complete a circumstantial chain.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the acquittal of the accused in the double murder case.
