Supreme Court: Under which circumstances Non-collection of tower location of the two mobiles is a serious investigational lapse?

 Lapse in collecting tower location of mobile(s) while

obtaining CDR

51. During investigation, the investigating officer was

apprised of mobile numbers of the deceased Mithilesh

Kumari (D-1) and the accused respondent. PW-19 was

produced to prove the CDR of one of the mobiles, though

both CDRs were part of police papers collected during

investigation. However, interestingly, the CDRs do not

disclose tower location of the concerned mobiles which

could have helped in pin-pointing as to whether the two

mobiles at the relevant time were in close proximity of each

other, and whether D-1’s mobile had moved to the place of

residence of the accused from where it was allegedly

recovered. Non-collection of tower location of the two

mobiles is a serious investigational lapse in the facts of the

case.

52. Further, strangely, the CDR of D-1’s mobile was

not even exhibited. Interestingly, PW-20 (i.e., the

investigating officer) does not even disclose whether D-1’s

mobile was operative or not after 31.08.2011 as per its

CDR.

53. In our view, CDRs of the two mobiles with corresponding tower locations would have been critical in revealing:

a. whether the accused’s mobile at the relevant

time was near the location where the dead

bodies of the two deceased were found; and

b. whether D-1’s mobile was active any time

after 31.08.2011; if yes, whether she received

any call after 31.08.2011; if yes, from what

location.

54. The importance of clarity on the aforesaid

questions cannot be undermined as they had the potential

to either corroborate or demolish the prosecution story.

Because if the mobile of the deceased was operative after

31.08.2011, PW-1’s statement that it was found switched

off would have been negated. Besides, its tower location

would have indicated where the person in possession of that

mobile was located. This was crucial because the

prosecution story hinges on the circumstance that the

deceased and the accused were together on 31.08.2011.

Therefore, if the tower location of the two mobiles had

disclosed that they were not in close proximity to each other

on the fateful day, some explanation would have been

required as to why it was so, when, according to the

prosecution, owners of those two mobiles were together on

the fateful day. Assuming that the accused may not have

carried her mobile to the scene of crime, tower location of

D-1’s mobile could have reflected upon the truth of the

prosecution story. Here there is no explanation by the

prosecution as to why the tower location was not collected.

In our view, lack of information in that regard is a serious

investigational lapse.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 166 of 2019

THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VsANCHLA @ CHANCHLA

Author: MANOJ MISRA, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 1074

Dated: October 01, 2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Investigating Officer Must Not Create Evidence' : Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal After Finding Witnesses Were 'Set Up'

 To a lay man, the above circumstances may appear

irrelevant in assessing credibility/ trustworthiness of a

witness. But to a trained judicial mind it is an important

circumstance in assessing whether a person is a natural

witness, who is aware of relevant facts, or is the one who

has been set up to create evidence. Normally, when a person

is aware about a crime and has knowledge of any

circumstance which, to his understanding, is incriminating

in nature and may be of help to the police, he may, as a

responsible person of the society, provide information to the

police. But where the circumstance, of which one has

knowledge or awareness, in itself is not one which could be

considered incriminating or relevant for investigation of a

crime, there is no likelihood of that person reporting it to

the police. Therefore, the answer to the question as to why,

when and in what circumstances the witness statement

was recorded during investigation becomes an important

tool in assessing the credibility of that witness. The reason

is simple. Because the answer would help in determining

whether the witness is a natural one or has been set up to

create evidence. {Para 41}

42. It is well settled that the role of the investigating

officer is to collect evidence and not to create one. Where

there is no occasion for the investigating officer to record

statement of a person, or for that person to impart

information to the police, yet, the police proceeds to record

his statement without narrating the circumstance in which

it was considered necessary to record his statement, a

serious doubt arises as to whether that witness has been

set up to create evidence.

43. We have no doubt in our mind that an investigating

officer may pick up clues from any statement recorded

during investigation to record statement of another. Such

an exercise is completely bona fide. For example, if after

recording statement of A, the investigating officer comes to

know that B may have knowledge of something relevant, he

would be justified in recording statement of B. But if the

investigating officer straightway records statement of B,

and there is no palpable reason for him to believe that B is

possessed of relevant information, and B has no reason to

impart information on his own to the investigating officer, a

suspicion would arise whether the exercise of recording

statement of B is undertaken just to create evidence. Lack

of explanation in that regard may dent the credibility of B.

44. Ordinarily an investigating officer collects evidence

from witnesses who are either present at the scene of crime

or are likely to be aware of the crime and have information

about it. Evidence may also be collected from persons who,

by virtue of their relationship with the victim or the named

accused, are likely to have relevant information.

Investigation may also reach out to those who may be in

contact with the victim, or the known accused, based on

Call Detail Record (CDR) of the mobile of the victim or the

suspects. Likewise, information may be collected on the

basis of information received through disclosure statement

suffered by the accused. However, where a person is not

even aware that the information which he is possessed of is

incriminating against some person, there is no likelihood of

that person reporting that information to the police. In such

circumstances, what propels the investigating officer to

record his statement becomes important, and failure to

disclose the reason may dent the credibility of that witness

as it may reasonably be inferred that the said witness is one

who has been set up.

45. In the present case, PW-20 i.e., the investigating

officer ducks the question and feigns ignorance as to when

he recorded the statement of PW-4 and PW-18 during

investigation. Further, there is no explanation as to what

prompted him to record statements of PW-4 and PW-18

during investigation. Importantly, PW-20 does not state

that in her disclosure statement the accused had disclosed

about travelling by Taxi from Chamba to Diur and back or

about her stay at the hotel. PW-20 only states that the

accused in her disclosure had stated that she could get the

keys and mobile recovered. Thus, statements of PW-4 and

PW-18 appear to have been recorded only to create

evidence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 166 of 2019

THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VsANCHLA @ CHANCHLA

Author: MANOJ MISRA, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 1074

Dated: October 01, 2026

Print Page

Speak to Type: A Complete Guide to Using Voice Typing in Google Docs

 Writing doesn't always require a keyboard. Google Docs includes a powerful, built-in feature called Voice typing that transforms your spoken words into written text in real time. Whether you want to draft an essay hands-free, speed up your writing process, or improve accessibility, this guide will walk you through setting up and mastering speech-to-text in Google Docs.

System Requirements & Setup

Before you begin, ensure you have a working microphone (either built-in or external) and a stable internet connection.

·       Desktop Compatibility: Voice typing is fully supported on desktop browsers including Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Apple Safari.

·       Mobile Availability: The feature is available on both Android and iOS devices through your smartphone's default keyboard microphone.

Step-by-Step: Using Voice Typing on Desktop

Print Page

Supreme Court: Testimony For Sexual Offence Within Home Does Not Require Same Corroboration As Crimes Committed In Open

The third principle concerns the appreciation of

evidence in cases of sexual offences and of crimes

committed within the privacy of the home. Offences

of this nature are seldom committed in the presence

of witnesses. The sexual abuse of a child within the

household, in particular, is perpetrated in secrecy

and in stealth, and the persons ordinarily present are

the perpetrator, the child and, if at all, a member of

the household who is powerless to prevent it. To

insist, in such cases, upon the kind of corroboration

that might be available in a crime committed in the

open would be to insist upon a standard that the very

nature of the offence renders impossible of

attainment, and would be to grant to those who prey

upon children within the home an immunity founded

upon the secrecy in which they cloak their crime. {Para 31}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 429-430/2020

WARIS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 

Author: VIKRAM NATH, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 1050.

Dated: SEPTEMBER 24, 2026

Print Page