Mere Weapon Recovery Linked by FSL Report Insufficient for Murder Conviction if Chain of Evidence is Broken and Eyewitnesses Turn Hostile: Supreme Court - 2025-11-15

Supreme Court Acquits Man in Murder Case, Citing Hostile Witnesses and Flawed Weapon Recovery

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has acquitted a man convicted of murder, ruling that the mere recovery of a weapon, even if supported by a forensic report, is insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when key eyewitnesses turn hostile and the chain of evidence is incomplete.

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the concurrent conviction of the appellant, Govind, by the Trial Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court, emphasizing the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that demand a higher standard of proof from the prosecution.

Case Background

The case dates back to June 12, 2016, when a woman named Promila was shot dead in Jhajjar, Haryana. Initially, an FIR was filed by her brother, Pradeep (PW-1), against her in-laws and three unknown assailants. Five days later, Pradeep gave a supplementary statement naming the appellant Govind, along with two others, Sanoj @ Sonu and Amit, as the perpetrators.

During the investigation, a country-made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered based on a disclosure statement made by Govind. However, the deceased's in-laws, who allegedly had a motive due to a property dispute, were not charge-sheeted.

The Trial Court acquitted Sanoj and Amit but convicted Govind under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld this decision, relying heavily on the weapon recovery and the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report which confirmed that bullets found in the victim's body could have been fired from the recovered pistol.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Appellant's Counsel, Mr. Gagan Gupta, argued that the conviction was unsustainable as it was based solely on the recovery of the weapon. He highlighted several critical flaws: - The primary eyewitness, Pradeep (PW-1), and another key witness (PW-5) turned hostile in court and did not support the prosecution's story. - The recovery was made from an unlocked iron box in a room accessible to other family members, and no independent witnesses were present. - The motive was attributed to the co-accused who were either acquitted or not charged, making the case against Govind weak.

Respondent's Counsel, Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, contended that the recovery of the pistol from the appellant's house and the matching FSL report were sufficient to prove his complicity, even if the eyewitnesses had turned hostile.

Court's Analysis: A Chain of Doubts

The Supreme Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence and identified several fatal weaknesses in the prosecution's case.

1. Hostile Eyewitnesses: The Court noted that the entire case was built on the statement of Pradeep (PW-1), who later resiled from his statement in court. "When he reached, Police personnel had shown him a pistol allegedly used in commission of the murder of his sister," the judgment quoted from his cross-examination, undermining his credibility as an eyewitness. The Court stated, "the case of prosecution against appellant is based on the testimony of the said eyewitness PW-1, who has turned hostile and failed to prove the presence of the appellant at the place of incident."

2. Flawed Recovery and Broken Chain of Custody: The judgment critically examined the circumstances of the weapon recovery. It highlighted that the recovery was from a place "accessible to other family members" and made without independent witnesses, making it suspicious.

More importantly, the Court found a broken chain of custody for the evidence. > "It is not clear on which date the said articles were taken out from Malkhana, to deposit the same in FSL which was on 08.07.2016 i.e., after a period of 19 days. As such mere indication of seal T2 as affixed is not sufficient to connect the recovery and deposit of the same recovered articles in FSL."

3. Ambiguity in Disclosure Statement: Delving into Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Court observed that Govind’s disclosure statement did not "distinctly" state that the recovered pistol was the very same weapon used in the murder. The bench emphasized that the word "distinctly" limits the admissible information to that which is clearly and unmistakably connected to the fact discovered.

4. Unproven Motive: The prosecution's theory that Govind acted on a "speculative quid pro quo arrangement" with the acquitted co-accused was found to be without any credible evidence. The primary motive lay with others who were not convicted.

Final Verdict

Concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the appellant's guilt, the Supreme Court held that the conviction could not be sustained.

> "In our considered view, the Trial Court and the High Court failed to appreciate the facts and evidence... In the totality of the circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt."

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts. Govind was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released from custody immediately.