LexStreak
Read free →
Supreme Court of India· 17 September 2026

Is a witness's statement about a gravely incriminating circumstance, kept silent without cogent reason, bound to lose most of its value?

THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. VARINDER VERMA@JATTI & ANR
2026 INSC 1028
Coram: Justice Manoj Misra · Justice Vijay Bishnoi
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.302 Indian Penal Code, 1860📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

A witness's statement about a gravely incriminating circumstance kept silent without cogent reason is bound to lose most of its value.

A witness's statement about a gravely incriminating circumstance kept silent without cogent reason is bound to lose most of its value. In Kali Ram v. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808, this Court held that a witness who stays silent about a gravely incriminating circumstance, absent cogent reason, loses most of the value of his evidence (¶16). Applying this, PW-3's failure to disclose the accused's movements with the Dandas to the informant despite being a close relative created serious doubt about the credibility of his testimony (¶18).

Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.302/34 — Circumstantial evidence — Chain of circumstances — Witness credibility — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.302/34 — Circumstantial evidence — Chain of circumstances — Held: A conviction resting on circumstantial evidence must be founded on a chain of circumstances so complete it excludes every hypothesis except guilt. Each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and be of a conclusive nature. (¶11) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.302/34 — Witness credibility — Delayed disclosure — Held further: A witness's statement about a gravely incriminating circumstance, kept silent without cogent reason, is bound to lose most of its value. An interested witness who withholds such a circumstance from the informant casts serious doubt on his testimony. (¶16, 18) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.302/34 — Circumstantial evidence — Recoveries — Held further: Recoveries made three days after arrest, proved only through an interested witness with the other seizure witness not examined, do not complete the chain of circumstances. The appeal against acquittal was accordingly dismissed. (¶20, 21)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 16In Kali Ram v. State of H.P.[^3], this Court observed:
Paragraph 18Here, enmity is proved, the witness (PW-3) reaches the scene of crime within two hours upon receiving call from PW-1 and notices dead bodies lying with injuries and wooden pieces scattered around, 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.
Acts & Sections
s.302 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.34 Indian Penal Code, 1860

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. VARINDER VERMA@JATTI & ANR — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Must a conviction based on circumstantial evidence rest on a complete chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections