Govind v. State of Haryana, 2025

On the morning of June 12, 2016, at approximately 6 a.m., three individuals allegedly arrived in a car and shot the deceased in village M.P. Majra, Jhajjar, Haryana.

The deceased’s brother lodged the FIR after receiving a telephonic message regarding the incident.

During the subsequent police investigation, the appellant and two co-accused were arrested.

A country-made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered from the appellant, while the car and a weapon were recovered from another co-accused.

The appellant’s defense argued that key eyewitnesses (PW-1 and PW-5) turned hostile during the trial and did not support the prosecution’s case.

PW-1, the brother of the deceased, stated that he arrived at the scene after hearing of the incident and could not identify the assailants. No independent witness corroborated his account.

The recovery of the weapon was made from an unlocked iron box in the appellant’s house, a location accessible to family members. No independent witnesses were examined to establish the chain of custody or confirm that the weapon was used in the killing.

The alleged motive attributed to the appellant was primarily speculative, based on a quid pro quo arrangement with co-accused, who had either been acquitted or were not chargesheeted.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had wrongly upheld the conviction solely on the basis of recovery of the pistol and an FSL report linking the recovered cartridges to the bullets taken from the deceased’s body.

The Court emphasized that the recovery of the weapon, which was also accessible to other family members, was unsupported by any independent witness. There was also an unexplained delay in sending the seized firearm for forensic examination.

The Court noted that, at the time of recovery, no independent witness from the neighborhood was joined. The iron box containing the weapon was open and accessible, and other household articles were kept there, none of which were seized separately.

The Court pointed out that since the eyewitnesses turned hostile, no last seen evidence was provided, and no credible motive was established, the question arises whether “mere recovery and the FSL report can, by itself, sustain the conviction of the appellant, particularly when other co-accused with motive have been acquitted.”

While the FSL report indicated that the recovered pistol and cartridges matched the bullets found in the deceased, the Court held that such evidence alone is insufficient to establish guilt without proof that the recovered weapon was actually used in the commission of the offence.

The Court reinforced the principle that mere recovery of a weapon, even if supported by FSL evidence, cannot alone sustain a murder conviction.

The judgment highlights the necessity of:

• Independent witnesses to corroborate the recovery of the weapon.

• Proper documentation and maintenance of the chain of custody.

• Evidence supporting motive and last seen links to establish culpability.

It was noted that speculative motive or association with co-accused cannot replace direct evidence.

The Court relied on precedent from Manjunath & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2023), holding that recoveries from areas accessible to others are suspicious without corroboration.

The decision strengthens procedural safeguards in criminal trials and ensures that convictions are not based solely on circumstantial evidence or forensic reports, upholding the principle of reasonable doubt.