Motive is an important element in commission of the offence, but conviction cannot be based on the motive alone. The existence of motive is only one of the circumstances to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution: The Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court passed a judgement on 13th of December, 2022 in the case of Kanchan Verma vs State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2012) and the case was presided over by THE HON’BLE SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA AND THE HON’BLE SRI ALOK KUMAR VERMA



Kanchan Verma, the appellant-accused, lodged a First Information Report that on 04.02.2008 at around 7.30 p.m., he was going to his house from his shop ‘Verma Jewellers’ along with his friend and artisan Proveer (deceased) on a motorcycle. They went to the house of Parvej Ansari (PW1). After talking to him (Parvej Ansari) for ten minutes, he was going to his house with his artisan Proveer. Proveer was sitting behind on the motorcycle. When they reached Ramnagar Ashram near Veerbhadra Road, a red coloured motorcycle, Hero Honda CD 100, came from behind and asked him to stop. He (Kanchan Verma) accelerated his motorcycle. The person sitting behind on that motorcycle fired, which hit Proveer. He (Kanchan Verma) stopped his motorcycle. The person sitting on that motorcycle opened the dikki of his motorcycle and took out a bag from it, which contained gold jewellery and cash. They took his mobile phone. After that, both the miscreants fled towards the barrage on their motorcycle. He (Kanchan Verma) ran to Gali No. 10 and told the people present there about the incident. Proveer was taken to the hospital in Uma Shankar’s (PW3) vehicle, where he was declared brought dead.

During the investigation, Kanchan Verma’s mobile phone was put on surveillance. Then, it was known that his mobile phone was being used by one Netrapal. Netrapal (PW5) informed that the said phone was being used by his son Sanjay. According to Sanjay (PW6), the said mobile phone was given to him by his friend Sudhir, the present appellant, for Rs. 500/-, but later he returned that mobile phone to Sudhir. On 06.03.2008, the appellants-Sudhir, Rupesh Tyagi and Amit Sharma were arrested by the police. At that time, the appellant Sudhir was searched. During the search, a mobile phone of Kanchan Verma and two five hundred rupees notes were recovered from him. He confessed that the said note belonged to Kanchan Verma. The confessional statement of the appellants-Sudhir and Rupesh Tyagi led to the recovery of a tamancha from the appellant-Rupesh Tyagi, in which a hollow cartridge was stuck and a tamancha was recovered from the appellant- Sudhir. These tamanchas were recovered from the bushes at the instance of these appellants. The recovered tamancha from the appellant- Rupesh Tyagi was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for ballistics examinations. One bullet was found in the dead body during the post-mortem examination. The said bullet was also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. However, the said bullet was not examined. During the investigation, the appellant- Amit Sharma said that Kanchan Verma was involved in this conspiracy. The District Magistrate, Dehradun had given sanction under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet. The case was committed to the Court of Session.


The court accept the case of the appellants. Accordingly, all the five Criminal Appeals and the Jail Appeal are allowed. The impugned judgment of the conviction and the sentence dated 11.09.2012, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun are set aside. The appellant – Kanchan Verma is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The appellant – Rupesh Tyagi is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC and of the charge under Section 25 Arms Act, 1959. The appellant – Sudhir is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and of the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellant – Amit Sharma is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120B IPC.

Click here to view the judgement


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *