Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, VIJAY BISHNOI, JJ.
Govind – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5641 of 2024
Decided On : 14-11-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 25 and 27 – Murder – Life imprisonment – No independent witnesses have deposed anything to prove prosecution allegation against appellant – Case of prosecution against appellant is based on testimony of eyewitness, who has turned hostile and failed to prove presence of appellant at place of incident and his complicity in commission of offence – It is not clear that Pistol recovered from appellant was the same which was used in commission of offence of murder of deceased – Confession given in Police custody, cannot be proved against a person accused of an offence unless it is given in immediate presence of Magistrate – When eye-witness has turned hostile and has not supported prosecution case and no evidence of ‘last seen’ has been adduced, and alleged motive against appellant remains unproved, mere recovery and FSL report cannot, by itself, sustain conviction of appellant, more particularly when other co-accused having motive has been acquitted – Purported motive attributed to appellant is founded merely on a speculative quid pro quo arrangement with acquitted co-accused and lacks support from any credible evidence – Trial Court and High Court both have committed error in convicting appellant without adverting to fundamental aspects applying principles of criminal jurisprudence – Judgment of High Court and also of Trial Court insofar they relate to conviction and sentence of appellant stand set aside and appellant acquitted of all charges. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 23, 24 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed against judgment of conviction of appellant dated 08.11.2023 for charges under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and for Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959. High Court vide impugned judgment affirmed Trial Court judgment dated 29.08.20183 and also sentence as directed.
Findings of Court:
Findings of conviction of appellant for alleged offences and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life cannot be sustained. In totality of circumstances, prosecution has failed to prove guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction of the appellant dated 08.11.20231 [In CRA-D-913-DB-2018 (O&M) passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh] for the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and for Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The High Court1 [In CRA-D-913-DB-2018 (O&M) passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh] vide impugned judgment affirmed the Trial Court2 [Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar] judgment dated 29.08.20183 [In Sessions Case No. 39/2016] and also the sentence as directed.
FACTS IN BRIEF
2. The prosecution’s case, in brief, was that an incident took place on 12.06.2016 at 6 am in village M.P. Majra of committing murder of Promila (deceased). An FIR was registered at Police Station Beri, Jhajjar, Haryana by her brother Pradeep. The basis of registration of FIR was a vocal telephonic message received from the Control Room of alleged commission of murder by three boys who arrived in an Alto car bearing registration No. HR-13D-0163 and shot the deceased by means of pistol. Upon receiving the said information, Investigating Officer (IO) ASI Jagbir Singh along with Head Constable Parveen, Head Constable Sandeep and Constable Rajesh rushed to the place of occurrence. They found huge congregation on spot where Pradeep @ Pradeep Kumar S/o Om Parkash gave his statement that his deceased sister was married to one Jai Bhagwan who had killed his three children and for the said offence, he was convicted and sentenced. While undergoing jail sentence, he committed suicide in jail. Thereafter, deceased’s mother-in-law Daya Kaur and brother-in-law (jeth) Ved Prakash did not allow her to step into the matrimonial home and threshed her out. It is said that possession of her house and land was forcefully taken by them, however, they were still having grudge against deceased. It was stated that the deceased succeeded in court case involving the said property and her in-laws were expected to deliver the possession of the house. Therefore, hatching a criminal conspiracy with the help of three young boys, deceased was shot by firearm and succumbed to the injuries. The complainant persuaded the police to register FIR against Daya Kaur, Ved Prakash and three unknown persons who came in the car. He also stated that out of these three unknown persons, he can identify two who came out of car and shot his deceased sister. As such FIR No. 206 of 2016 was registered against Daya Kaur, Ved Prakash and three unknown persons. After five days, on 17.06.2016, Pradeep (PW-1) gave his supplementary statement and said that pursuant to his own investigation, he came to know that the murder of his sister has been committed by Sanoj @ Sonu S/o Ved Prakash, Amit (son of sister of co-accused Sanoj) and Govind (appellant herein) by using firearm, as such, they were implicated by name.
3. On 18.06.2016, the appellant and co-accused Amit were arrested, and as per their disclosure statements, a motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-12-AA-5040 was seized from Amit, while the recovery of country made pistol along with two live cartridges were made from the appellant, respectively. The other co-accused Sanoj @ Sonu was arrested on 04.07.2016 and on his disclosure statement, a car bearing registration No. HR-13D-0163 and pistol kept in the dashboard of the car were recovered. After the investigation, chargesheet was filed on 28.09.2016 only against appellant, co-accused Amit and Sanoj @ Sonu. Daya Kaur (mother- in-law) and Ved Prakash (jeth) though named in the FIR, but absolved in the investigation and no chargesheet was filed against them.
4. After cognizance by Jurisdictional Magistrate, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 15.09.2016 and the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act were framed on 23.12.2016 against all the three accused. They abjured their guilt and took the defence of false
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
