The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Himachal Pradesh government against the acquittal of a woman accused in a 2011 double murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence pointing exclusively to her guilt. A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi upheld the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision to acquit Anchla alias Chanchla in the case involving the deaths of her stepmother and minor stepbrother. The judgment was delivered on October 1, 2026, in The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Anchla @ Chanchla.

The two victims were found dead inside their house at Diur on September 7, 2011, after the family reported that the woman had been missing for several days and a foul smell was coming from the locked residence. The post-mortem examination indicated that both had died from strangulation, with the deaths estimated to have occurred several days before their bodies were discovered. The prosecution alleged that Anchla had visited the house on August 31, 2011, and that the murders took place during the intervening night of August 31 and September 1. The Sessions Court at Chamba had convicted her under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to life imprisonment in 2012, but the High Court overturned the conviction in 2014.

The prosecution case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the allegation that Anchla was last seen at the house, evidence from a taxi driver who said he took her from Diur to Chamba late that night, and testimony from a hotel employee regarding her arrival in Chamba. Investigators also relied on an injury to her thumb, the recovery of a bunch of keys and the deceased woman’s mobile phone, and DNA evidence showing that blood found on a trunk inside the house matched Anchla’s profile. The prosecution argued that these circumstances, taken together, established her presence at the crime scene and connected her to the murders.

Also Read: NEET PG 2026: Plea in Supreme Court Challenges NBEMS Disclosure

The Supreme Court, however, found significant gaps in the prosecution’s evidence. It noted that the alleged last-seen evidence was weakened by inconsistencies in the testimony of a key witness, including an improvement over his earlier police statement. The Court also questioned the circumstances in which the statements of the taxi driver and hotel employee were recorded, observing that the investigating officer had not adequately explained how these witnesses came to the attention of the investigation. The bench further flagged the failure to properly collect and exhibit call-detail records and tower-location information, which could have helped establish the movements of those involved.

The Court also found that the recovery evidence and DNA findings did not conclusively establish that Anchla committed the murders. It noted that the lock allegedly opened by the recovered keys was not satisfactorily linked to the lock found on the victims’ house. Similarly, while her blood was found on a trunk inside the house, the Court observed that this only established that she had been there at some point and did not prove that she was present on August 31 or September 1. The bench also noted that no blood belonging to her was found on the victims’ clothes or the material allegedly used for strangulation. The prosecution’s suggested motive involving property was likewise not supported by documentary evidence.

The Supreme Court held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, every incriminating circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstances must form a chain that excludes reasonable possibilities consistent with the accused’s innocence. Finding that the prosecution had failed to meet that standard, the bench declined to interfere with the High Court’s acquittal and dismissed the Himachal Pradesh government’s appeal. The ruling also reiterated that an appellate court should be cautious while overturning an acquittal, particularly when the lower court’s view is supported by the evidence on record.

Also Read: Supreme Court Declines Priority Hearing Plea, Says Equal Access To Justice Applies To All Parties