Supreme Court Acquits Accused After Hostile Witnesses & Unreliable Recovery—Conviction Set Aside for Lack of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Case Name: Govind v. State of Haryana
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 5641 of 2024; 2025 INSC 1318
Date of Judgment/Order: 14 November 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijay Bishnoi

Held: The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act was unsustainable as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. With both key eyewitnesses turning hostile, no independent witness supporting the case, and no evidence establishing presence of the appellant at the crime scene, the prosecution’s case rested solely on recovery of a pistol and cartridges. The Court held that the recovery was unreliable as it was made from an unlocked iron box in a room accessible to family members, was unsupported by independent witnesses, and suffered from a broken chain of custody. The FSL report, though matching the cartridges, could not salvage the case in the absence of proof that the recovered weapon was the one used in the murder.

Summary: The case arose from the 12.06.2016 murder of Promila, allegedly shot by three men arriving in an Alto car. The FIR was lodged by her brother Pradeep (PW-1), who initially claimed to witness the incident and later named the accused, including the appellant, in a supplementary statement. However, during trial, both PW-1 and PW-5 (first responder) turned hostile, denying their earlier statements, denying identification of the assailants, and asserting that police obtained signatures on blank sheets. No Test Identification Parade was conducted despite the FIR naming unknown assailants. The alleged motive involved a land dispute with the deceased’s in-laws, but the persons with purported motive were either not chargesheeted or were acquitted; no evidence established any motive for the appellant. The recovery of a pistol and cartridges, made pursuant to the appellant’s disclosure, was from an open, unlocked box in a room accessible to family members, with no independent witnesses present. Further, the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody, as the dates of removal from the Malkhana before FSL submission were not recorded. The Court reviewed precedents including Manjunath, Jaikam Khan, and Nikhil Chandra Mondal, reaffirming that when recovery is from a public or accessible place without independent corroboration, it cannot form the sole basis of conviction.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any credible evidence linking the appellant to the crime, and neither motive nor presence nor the recovered weapon was proved to the standard required in criminal law. Given the hostile witnesses, unreliable recovery, and broken chain of custody, the conviction was unsustainable. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case, and all pending applications were disposed of.