Supreme Court Acquits Man in Village Killing, Holds Recovery and FSL Alone Insufficient to Sustain Conviction

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi heard an appeal by Govind against his conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, challenging the Trial Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court judgments that had convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment for the June 2016 murder of Promila.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the appellant’s release unless required in connection with any other offence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, observing that the alleged eyewitness “turned hostile” and that the recovery of a country-made pistol from an iron box in a house accessible to other family members, together with the FSL report, did not establish that the recovered weapon was the one used in the murder. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further noted that “such evidence by itself is not sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt in the absence of any proof that the recovered pistol was indeed used in the commission of the offence.”

Background

The prosecution's case arose from the death of Promila on 12 June 2016 in village M.P. Majra, Jhajjar. An FIR recorded on information received alleged that three men in an Alto car had shot her. The complainant, her brother Pradeep, initially named three unknown persons; five days later he filed a supplementary statement naming Sanoj @ Sonu, Amit and Govind. Police arrested the appellant and co-accused Amit on 18 June 2016 and recovered, as per disclosure statements, a country-made pistol and two live cartridges from the appellant and a car and another pistol from Sanoj. The Trial Court convicted only Govind and acquitted the other two; the High Court affirmed the conviction relying on the recovery and an FSL report correlating recovered cartridges with bullets in the deceased.

On appeal, the defence argued that the principal eyewitness (Pradeep PW-1) and another key witness (Sandeep PW-5) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution; the recovery was from an unlocked iron box in a dwelling accessible to family members and was not proved in the presence of independent public witnesses; and the disclosure statements and recoveries did not distinctly establish that the pistol recovered was the weapon used in the murder. The State contended that the FSL report and recoveries connected the appellant to the crime.

The Court analysed Section 27 of the Evidence Act and precedent, emphasising that only information that “relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered” is admissible and that recoveries from places accessible to others invite close scrutiny. It found the chain connecting seizure, storage and deposit for FSL testing incomplete and held that motive and presence at the scene remained unproven. The Court concluded that, on the totality of evidence, the prosecution had not discharged its burden and allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant and directing immediate release.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1318; Criminal Appeal No. 5641 of 2024 Case Title: Govind v. State of Haryana Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gagan Gupta, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Advocate