Supreme Court upholds murder acquittal, citing delayed witness disclosure

The Supreme Court examined whether the circumstantial evidence, including witness testimony and recoveries, was sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Who it concerns: Appellant: The State of Himachal Pradesh; Respondents: Varinder Verma and Dev Raj; Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi.

What the court decided

• The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh.
• The Court upheld the High Court's judgment acquitting the respondents, Varinder Verma and Dev Raj.
• The Court found the testimony of key witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) untrustworthy due to delayed disclosure of incriminating circumstances and lack of corroboration.
• The Court characterized the recovery of blood-stained clothes and wooden sticks (Dandas) as 'stage-managed and artificial' due to the three-day delay after arrest and the nature of the witnesses involved.

Also in the document

• The Court noted that the murder occurred at night with no eyewitnesses, and forensic evidence indicated the deceased had consumed large quantities of alcohol, leaving open the possibility of a fall or brawl.
• The Court highlighted that witness PW-3, a relative of the deceased, failed to disclose the accused's presence at the scene to the informant (PW-1) immediately upon arriving, despite the enmity between the parties.
• The recoveries of evidence (clothes and weapons) were made three days after the arrest, and the witnesses to these recoveries were either interested parties or had personal disputes with the accused's family.