Quick Answer: The Supreme Court refused to restore the murder conviction of two men acquitted by the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The case rested only on circumstantial evidence. The key witness, a nephew of one deceased, kept silent about seeing the accused armed with dandas when he reached the bodies at midnight, and the recoveries made three days after arrest looked stage-managed. The State's appeal was dismissed.
In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Varinder Verma @ Jatti & Anr. (2026 INSC 1028), the Supreme Court held that a witness who fails to disclose a gravely incriminating circumstance at the first opportunity loses credibility, and that recoveries of blood-stained clothes and dandas made three days after arrest, proved through an interested witness and a witness with a motive, "appear stage-managed and artificial" (paras 18–20). A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi upheld the High Court's acquittal of the two accused under Sections 302/34 IPC (para 21).
Status: State's criminal appeal against the High Court of Himachal Pradesh judgment dated 06.04.2015 dismissed; acquittal of both respondents maintained (paras 2, 21).
Headnote: Circumstantial Evidence and Acquittal in a Double Murder Case
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Appeal against acquittal – Interested witness – Delayed disclosure of incriminating circumstance – Recovery of weapons and blood-stained clothes after arrest – Benefit of doubt.
Held: (i) In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the incriminating circumstances must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, must be consistent only with guilt, and must form a chain so complete that it excludes every hypothesis except guilt (para 11).
(ii) The occurrence was at night, there was no eyewitness, both deceased were drunk, and no one saw them with the accused, so the possibility of a brawl could not be ruled out (para 12).
(iii) The witness who claimed to have seen the accused near the deceased did not inspire confidence and his evidence was inconclusive (para 13).
(iv) The nephew of one deceased, an interested witness, did not tell the informant about the accused carrying dandas when both were at the spot at midnight, and the FIR named no one; this cast serious doubt on his testimony (paras 14–18).
(v) The accused were arrested the same morning on the nephew's statement, which raised serious doubt that the case was contrived on mere suspicion (para 19).
(vi) Recoveries made three days after arrest, proved by an interested witness and a witness with a motive, with the other seizure witnesses not examined, did not inspire confidence (para 20).
(paras 11–21)
Case Details: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Varinder Verma (2026 INSC 1028)
Final Outcome: Appeal dismissed; High Court's acquittal of both accused upheld.
Case: The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Varinder Verma @ Jatti & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1028
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2018
Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) – Reportable
Date of Decision: 17 September 2026
Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi (Order; no author named)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 34; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313
Impugned Order: Judgment and order dated 06.04.2015 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, which allowed the appeal of the accused and acquitted them (para 2)
Counsel: Mr. Ketan Paul, AOR for the appellant-State; Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR and Mr. P.N. Puri, AOR for the respondents
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- A conviction on circumstantial evidence needs a complete chain of proved circumstances consistent only with guilt (para 11).
- Where the deceased were drunk, the incident was at night and no one saw them with the accused, a brawl could not be ruled out (para 12).
- A close relative who keeps silent about a gravely incriminating circumstance when he meets the informant at the scene loses credibility, following Kali Ram v. State of H.P. (paras 15–18).
- Each case turns on its own facts; even a gap of a few hours, rather than two months as in Kali Ram, can matter (para 17).
- An immediate arrest on a belatedly disclosed circumstance points to a case contrived on mere suspicion (para 19).
- Recoveries made three days after arrest, through an interested witness and a witness with a motive, without examining the other seizure witnesses, appear stage-managed (para 20).
- Once the key witness's testimony is untrustworthy, nothing much remains of the prosecution case (para 20).
Brief Facts of the Case
PW-1 Kuldeep Verma, son of Om Prakash, lodged an FIR against unknown persons at 04.45 hours on 07.06.2009. He stated that on 06.06.2009, at about 10.30 pm, while searching for his father and Ganga Ram, he found both of them dead by the roadside near Gadah Kufri, with blood-stained small wooden pieces scattered near the bodies. The FIR named no accused and expressed no suspicion against anyone (para 3).
After the police recorded the statement of PW-3 on 07.06.2009, the two accused were arrested. On 10.06.2009, blood-stained clothes and dandas were said to have been recovered at their instance (para 4).
The trial court convicted both accused under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. It relied on three circumstances: PW-2 had seen the accused notice the deceased drinking, and the accused later asked PW-3, while carrying dandas, where the deceased had gone; the recoveries of dandas and blood-stained clothes matching the deceased's blood group; and enmity, since Ganga Ram had been turned out of his house by the father of accused Varinder Verma (paras 2, 5).
The High Court acquitted both accused. It noted that both deceased had consumed alcohol in large quantity, so a fall or a brawl could not be ruled out. It found the recovery of dandas from a pond untrustworthy, since wood normally floats and the recovery witness PW-8 had a motive. It also noted that no blood sample of the accused was taken and there was no DNA profiling (paras 6–7). The State appealed.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused.
- Whether the testimony of PW-3, an interested witness who did not disclose the incriminating circumstance at the first opportunity, could be relied upon.
- Whether the recoveries of dandas and blood-stained clothes made after arrest were trustworthy.
- Whether the High Court's acquittal called for interference.
Court's Findings and Reasoning
The test for circumstantial evidence: The Court restated that the circumstances must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, be conclusive, and form a chain so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence (para 11).
No eyewitness and a possible brawl: The occurrence was at night by a public road. There was no eyewitness, both deceased were found with head injuries near shattered pieces of wood, and forensic evidence showed they were drunk. The Court held that a brawl could not be ruled out and noted that no one saw the deceased in the company of the accused (para 12).
PW-2's evidence: Whether PW-2 could spot the accused in the darkness was "a big question". He did not say the accused carried dandas or that they stopped and spoke to the deceased. His evidence did not inspire confidence and was inconclusive (para 13).
PW-3's silence at the scene: PW-3 was the Bhanja (nephew) of a deceased and an interested witness. In cross-examination he admitted that he reached the spot at about midnight on PW-1's call, yet did not tell PW-1 that the accused, carrying dandas, had asked him which way the deceased had gone. Being a close relative, he would have known of the enmity and would in all probability have told the informant. Instead, the FIR was registered against unknown persons (paras 14–15).
Kali Ram applied: Relying on Kali Ram v. State of H.P., the Court noted that a witness who keeps silent about a gravely incriminating circumstance without cogent reason loses most of his value. Although the gap here was not two months, each case must be decided on its own facts. PW-3's failure to disclose a circumstance that had occurred a couple of hours earlier created serious doubt about his credibility (paras 16–18).
Same-day arrest: The police recorded PW-3's statement on the morning of 07.06.2009 and arrested the accused the same day. If the circumstance was grave enough to justify immediate arrest, PW-3 should have disclosed it at the first opportunity. This raised serious doubt that the case was contrived on mere suspicion (para 19).
Recoveries: The accused denied the recoveries in their Section 313 CrPC statements. The recoveries were made on 10.06.2009, three days after arrest. PW-3, an interested witness, attested the recovery of clothes, and PW-8, against whose son the father of accused Varinder Verma had lodged a report, attested the recovery of dandas from the pond. In both cases the other seizure witness was not examined. The Court held these recoveries appeared stage-managed and artificial (para 20).
Final Outcome and Directions
The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of (paras 21–22). The acquittal of Varinder Verma and Dev Raj recorded by the High Court stands.
Legal Principle Laid Down
When a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence, the testimony of a witness who professes to know a gravely incriminating circumstance but fails, without cogent reason, to disclose it at the first natural opportunity loses credibility, even if the delay is only a matter of hours. Recoveries made days after arrest, proved only by interested or motivated witnesses while the other seizure witnesses are not examined, cannot complete the chain of circumstances (paras 11, 17–20).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Kali Ram v. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808, para 14 – silence of a witness about a gravely incriminating circumstance, without cogent reason, makes his statement lose most of its value (paras 16–17).
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 12: "There is no eyewitness to the murder. Both deceased were found dead lying by the roadside with head injuries etc.; and shattered pieces of wood were lying near their bodies. The forensic evidence had confirmed that they were drunk. In such circumstances, possibility of there being a brawl cannot be ruled out. Besides, no one saw them in the company of the accused."
Para 15: "However, here, the FIR was registered against unknown person(s) without expressing any kind of suspicion against anyone."
Para 17: "No doubt, here the time-gap in making disclosure about the incriminating circumstance is not two months as in Kali Ram's case (supra), but each case must be decided in the context of its own facts, and inferences from proven facts must be drawn accordingly."
Para 19: "If the incriminating circumstance disclosed by PW-3 was so grave as to justify immediate arrest, why it was not disclosed by PW-3 at the first opportunity. This creates a serious doubt about the prosecution case being contrived on mere suspicion."
Para 20: "Such recoveries, made after three days of arrest, appear stage-managed and artificial. They do not inspire our confidence. Besides, once we find the testimony of PW-3 untrustworthy, nothing much remains in the prosecution case."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For defence lawyers: The ruling supports attacking a witness who was at the scene with the informant but did not reveal the incriminating fact until the next morning, even where the gap is only hours.
- For prosecutors: Recoveries should be proved through independent seizure witnesses; relying only on relatives or witnesses with a motive, and not examining the other attesting witness, can make recoveries look stage-managed.
- For investigators: The High Court's concerns about not taking blood samples of the accused and the absence of DNA profiling show the value of scientific links in circumstantial cases (para 6).
- For trial courts: Where deceased persons were intoxicated and found by a road at night with no eyewitness, the possibility of a brawl must be weighed before treating the chain as complete.
FAQs on Circumstantial Evidence and Delayed Witness Disclosure
1. Why did the Supreme Court refuse to restore the conviction?
The chain of circumstances was incomplete. The key witness's testimony was doubtful, the evidence of another witness was inconclusive, and the recoveries appeared stage-managed (paras 13, 18–20).
2. Why was PW-3's evidence doubted?
He was a nephew of a deceased and an interested witness, and he did not tell the informant at the scene at midnight that he had seen the accused with dandas looking for the deceased (paras 14, 18).
3. Does the Kali Ram principle apply only to long delays?
No. The Court said the gap here was not two months as in Kali Ram, but each case must be decided on its own facts, and even a short unexplained silence can matter (para 17).
4. What was wrong with the recoveries?
They were made three days after arrest and were proved only by an interested witness and a witness with a motive, while the other seizure witnesses were not examined (para 20).
5. Did the Court consider the possibility of a brawl?
Yes. The deceased were drunk, the incident was at night and there was no eyewitness, so a brawl could not be ruled out (para 12).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 1028, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Varinder Verma, appeal against acquittal, Section 302 IPC, Section 34 IPC, circumstantial evidence, interested witness, delayed disclosure by witness, Kali Ram v. State of H.P., stage-managed recovery, Section 313 CrPC, benefit of doubt, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Supreme Court reportable judgment, criminal lawyer
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – State of Himachal Pradesh v. Varinder Verma
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).
![Retaliatory Counterblast FIR Quashed: Anita Maurya v. State of U.P. [2026 INSC 806]](/uploads/images/2026/11/8232ade3-3961-49ac-9816-a90f9c6b417e.jpg)
![Aravalli Plantation Land Protected, Mining Lease Cancelled: Sunder Singh [2026 INSC 855]](/uploads/images/2026/11/e96bb3f3-c80d-472c-9131-98724d5f22bf.jpg)
![Section 299 CrPC Order Mandatory for Absconding Accused: Mahendra Singh [2026 INSC 775]](/uploads/images/2026/11/89d3a4d9-e0df-4da3-a33b-ed6cd5e5bd17.jpg)