Recoveries Made After Three Days Of Arrest Appear Staged: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal In Double Murder Case

The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed against the judgment and order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court acquitting the first and second respondents, who were convicted by the Court of Session under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

The Division Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held, “The other witness of seizure of those clothes was not examined. Likewise, two Dandas were recovered from the pond by the two accused, each entering the pond, one after the other. Witness of this recovery is PW-8 against whose son the accused Varinder Verma’s father had lodged a report. Here also, the other witness of seizure memorandum was not examined. 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.”

AOR Ketan Paul represented the Appellant while AOR Rabin Majumder represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

An FIR was lodged by PW1 (Kuldeep Verma), son of Om Prakash, one of the two deceased, against unknown persons, disclosing that the that informant’s father (Om Prakash) had gone to Theog and had to return to his house at Gadah. Informant had also gone to Theog but he returned earlier. Informant’s father, though had arrived at the Bus Stop, had not reached home. The other deceased, was with him. However, when informant’s father did not return and could not be contacted on his mobile, the informant (PW1) along with one Mukesh Verma (not examined) went to look for them. Their dead bodies were found by the roadside during the search, and blood-stained small wooden pieces were lying scattered around the bodies. In the FIR, neither anyone was named as an accused nor was suspicion expressed against any person.

After recording the statement of the third witness (PW-3), the accused were arrested, and they suffered a disclosure statement. Later, at their instance, their blood-stained clothes, worn by them on the day of the crime, and Dandas, used in the crime, were recovered. The Trial Court convicted the accused. However, in appeal, the High Court acquitted them after noticing that the forensic examination of the two deceased had revealed that they had consumed alcohol in large quantities and, therefore, the possibility of injuries being suffered on account of a fall or on account of a brawl could not be ruled out. It was in such circumstances that the appeal came to be filed before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, to sustain a conviction, firstly, the incriminating circumstances would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt; secondly, all the circumstances so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused; besides, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. The Bench further stated that such circumstances must constitute a chain so far complete that it excludes every hypothesis except the one proposed to be proved.

“In other words, there must be a chain of circumstances so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been committed by the accused”, it added.

The Bench noted that the occurrence was at night, near or by the side of a public road, and there was no eyewitness to the murder. Both deceased were found dead lying by the roadside with head injuries, 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”, it stated.

The Bench also took note of the fact that if PW-3 (nephew of deceased) had been a witness to 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 and, therefore, he would have been aware of the enmity between the accused and the two deceased. However, the FIR was registered against unknown persons without expressing any kind of suspicion against anyone.

Considering the fact that the police recorded the statement of PW-3 in the morning and arrested the two accused immediately thereafter, the same day, the Bench mentioned, “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 Bench also found the recoveries, made after three days of arrest to be artificial. Taking note of such facts and circumstances, the Bench dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Varinder Verma@jatti & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1028)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Ketan Paul, Advocates Tushar Bhushan, Md. Imran Ahmad,

Respondent: AOR Rabin Majumder, Advocates Shailendra Singh, Abhyuday Dhasmana, AOR P. N. Puri, Advocates Rahul Sharma, Reeta Dewan Puri, Dhiraj, Sudershan Goel, Suresh Kumar Bhan

Click here to read/download Order