Latest Judgement

The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Varinder Verma @ Jatti & Anr., 2026

Supreme Court of India·15 September 2026

Judgement Details

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

15 September 2026

Judges

Justice Manoj Misra & Justice Vijay Bishnoi

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

Facts of the Case

The prosecution case concerned the alleged murder of two deceased persons.
The prosecution relied significantly upon the testimony of PW-3, who claimed to have seen the accused persons armed with dandas and allegedly asking about the whereabouts of the two deceased.
PW-3 reached the place of occurrence within approximately two hours of the alleged incident.
He saw the deceased persons lying injured and also noticed wooden pieces scattered at the spot.
PW-1, who was a close relative of the deceased, was also present at the scene.
Despite having allegedly witnessed the incriminating circumstance, PW-3 did not disclose it to PW-1 or the other relatives of the deceased on the day of the incident.
PW-3 disclosed the alleged incriminating circumstance only on the following day.
His subsequent statement became an important basis for the arrest of the accused persons.
The prosecution also relied upon the alleged recovery of blood-stained clothes pursuant to the disclosure statements of the accused.
A forensic report indicated that the blood found on the clothes was of the same blood group as that of the deceased.
However, the investigating agency did not obtain blood samples from the accused persons to determine whether they also had the same blood group.
No DNA profiling was conducted to conclusively establish that the blood stains found on the clothes belonged to the deceased.
The High Court had acquitted the accused persons.
The State challenged the acquittal before the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether the belated disclosure of an incriminating circumstance by PW-3, despite having an opportunity to disclose it earlier, creates serious doubt regarding the credibility of his testimony?
Whether the failure of PW-3 to disclose the alleged incriminating circumstance at the first opportunity materially affects the prosecution case?
Whether the alleged recovery of blood-stained clothes establishes the involvement of the accused when the investigation did not determine whether the accused had the same blood group as the deceased?
Whether the absence of DNA profiling materially affects the evidentiary value of the blood-stained clothes relied upon by the prosecution?
Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidence relied upon against them?
Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused persons in the circumstances of the case?

Judgement

The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of the accused persons.
The Court found the testimony of PW-3 to be materially doubtful because of his failure to disclose the alleged incriminating circumstance at the earliest opportunity.
The Court noted that PW-3 had reached the scene shortly after the alleged occurrence and was in the presence of PW-1, a close relative of the deceased.
Despite this opportunity, PW-3 did not inform PW-1 that the accused persons had allegedly been armed with dandas and were looking for the deceased.
The Court held that such unexplained silence created a serious doubt regarding the credibility of PW-3's subsequent testimony.
The Court relied upon the principle stated in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973) concerning the assessment of evidence and the benefit of reasonable doubt.
The Court observed that if the information subsequently disclosed by PW-3 was sufficiently serious to justify the immediate arrest of the accused, the failure to disclose it at the first opportunity required an explanation.
The Court also examined the prosecution's reliance upon the recovery of blood-stained clothes.
Although the blood group found on the clothes reportedly matched that of the deceased, the investigating agency did not obtain the blood samples of the accused persons.
Therefore, the possibility that other persons could have the same blood group could not be ruled out.
The absence of DNA profiling meant that the prosecution could not conclusively establish that the blood stains belonged to the deceased.
The Court therefore found that the evidence did not conclusively establish the involvement of the accused.
The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal and dismissed the State's appeal.

Held

The unexplained failure of a witness to disclose a serious incriminating circumstance at the earliest opportunity can substantially affect the credibility of his subsequent testimony.
Where a witness claims to have witnessed a grave circumstance connected with a murder but remains silent despite having an immediate opportunity to disclose it, the subsequent disclosure requires a cogent explanation.
In the absence of such an explanation, the evidentiary value of the delayed disclosure may be significantly diminished.
A matching blood group, by itself, does not conclusively establish that blood stains found on an article originated from the deceased.
The absence of DNA profiling may become significant where the prosecution relies upon blood stains as an important link in the chain of circumstances.
The prosecution must establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Where the prosecution evidence gives rise to substantial doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt.
The High Court's acquittal of the accused persons was upheld.

Analysis

Delayed disclosure: The Court treated the unexplained delay by PW-3 as an important circumstance affecting the reliability of his testimony.
First opportunity: The judgment emphasizes the significance of what a witness does when the opportunity to disclose an important fact first arises. Failure to mention a supposedly crucial fact at that stage can weaken the subsequent version.
Relationship with PW-1: PW-1 was a close relative of the deceased and was present at the crime scene. The Court considered it significant that PW-3 did not disclose the alleged conduct of the accused to him.
Credibility of witness testimony: The Court did not treat the testimony of PW-3 in isolation. His conduct before the eventual disclosure was considered while assessing the reliability of his evidence.
Case based on suspicion: The Court observed that the circumstances raised a serious possibility that the prosecution case had been developed on the basis of suspicion rather than sufficiently reliable evidence.
Blood-group evidence: The matching blood group was not considered conclusive because persons other than the deceased could potentially have the same blood group.
DNA evidence: DNA profiling could have provided a stronger scientific link between the blood stains and the deceased. Its absence weakened this particular evidentiary circumstance.
Standard of proof: The judgment reinforces that criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt and that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for legally reliable evidence.
Acquittal: Since the prosecution evidence contained significant weaknesses, the Supreme Court found no basis to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the High Court.