The Supreme Court has observed that a witness's failure to disclose incriminating circumstances against the accused promptly creates a serious doubt about the credibility of his testimony.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi heard the case, in which the belated testimony of PW3 played a crucial role in the conviction of the accused persons. The witness stated that the accused persons, armed with Dandas, had inquired from him which way the two deceased had gone. However, despite reaching the crime scene on the day of the crime, he did not disclose these incriminating circumstances against the accused to the deceased's relatives who were present at the crime scene and disclosed them only the next day, leading to the arrest of the accused persons.

The question arose, therefore, was when the said witness was said to have possessed the incriminating circumstances against the accused persons, then why didn't he disclose the same to other witness PW 1, who was present at the crime scene, and was a close relative of the deceased.

Dismissing the State's appeal against the acquittal, the Supreme Court, relying on its earlier ruling in Kali Ram v. State of H.P. (1973), treated PW 3's silence as materially affecting the credibility of his testimony.

According to the Court, when a witness claims knowledge of a grave incriminating circumstance against a person accused of murder but remains silent about it despite an opportunity to disclose it, the evidentiary value of the subsequent disclosure is diminished in the absence of a cogent explanation.

The Court stressed that PW-3 had reached the scene within about two hours of the alleged encounter. Yet, despite seeing the deceased lying injured and wooden pieces scattered around, he did not disclose that the accused had allegedly been armed with Dandas and looking for the deceased.

“If PW-3 had been a witness of the said incriminating circumstance he would have, in all probability, informed the informant about it because he was a close relative of the deceased as well as PW-1… yet he fails to disclose the incriminating circumstance of the accused armed with Dandas looking for the two deceased, which had occurred just a couple of hours before, to his cousin on whose call he had rushed to the spot. This creates a serious doubt about the credibility of his testimony.”, the Court said.

Prosecution's case was based on suspicion

According to the Court, the prosecution's case was based on suspicion, as if PW-3's disclosure of the incriminating circumstances against the accused on the next of crime was grave enough to warrant their immediate arrest, then why did he not disclose this information at the first opportunity?

“What is even more interesting is that the police record the statement of PW-3 in the morning of 07.06.2009 and arrest the two accused immediately thereafter, the same day. 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.”, the Court said.

Absence of DNA profiling also proved fatal to the prosecution's case

The prosecution relied on the alleged recoveries made pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused persons. This includes blood-stained clothes carrying the same blood group as were of the deceased. However, no DNA profiling was done to establish that the accused persons also have the same blood group.

“DNA Insofar as the recoveries of blood stained clothes were concerned, the High Court observed that though the forensic report indicated that blood found on the clothes matched with the blood group of the deceased, the investigation did not obtain the blood sample of the accused to rule out possibility of the accused having the same blood group. Besides, in the absence of DNA profiling of the blood, there may be several persons having the same blood group and as such the circumstance did not conclusively establish that the blood stain found on clothes are of the deceased.”, the Court said.

In terms of the aforesaid, the acquittal was upheld, thereby dismissing the appeal.

Cause Title: THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VERSUS VARINDER VERMA @ JATTI & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 972

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Ketan Paul, AOR Mr. Tushar Bhushan, Adv. Md. Imran Ahmad, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR Mr. Shailendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhyuday Dhasmana, Adv. Mr. P. N. Puri, AOR Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Reeta Dewan Puri, Adv. Mr. Dhiraj, Adv. Mr. Sudershan Goel, Adv. Mr. Suresh Kumar Bhan, Adv.