Holding

A conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of a weapon recovered from a place accessible to others and a forensic report when the recovery does not distinctly relate to the offence and the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Summary

The appellant Govind was convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC and for illegal possession of a firearm under Section 25 of the Arms Act based primarily on the recovery of a country‑made pistol and two live cartridges from an iron box in his house and a forensic report linking the cartridges to the bullets recovered from the victim. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of the victim's brother (PW‑1) and his sibling (PW‑5), both of whom turned hostile and failed to place the appellant at the scene. The Court examined whether the recovery, made from a place accessible to other family members, and the forensic report alone could satisfy the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, especially in the absence of any independent eyewitness or motive evidence. Applying Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that the recovered weapon did not distinctly relate to the commission of the offence and the chain of custody was inadequately proved. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was ordered to be released.

Issues considered

Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act, based solely on the recovery of a weapon from a place accessible to others and a forensic report, is supported by cogent material and proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the recovery of the pistol and cartridges, without an independent witness and with an incomplete chain of custody, constitutes a relevant fact distinctively related to the disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Whether the hostile turn of the eyewitnesses and the lack of proved motive negate the prosecution's case.

Legislation cited

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the judgment of Trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court, convicting the appellant for the charges u/s.302, IPC and s.25, Arms Act and the sentence as directed, is based on cogent material and evidence sufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. a place accessible to others – Mere recovery and the FSL report, if can sustain the conviction – Appellant convicted u/s.302, IPC and s.25, Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life – Mere recovery and the FSL report, if by itself can sustain the conviction of

Subjects

Guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubtCountry-made pistol and live cartridges allegedly recoveredRecovery not established as related to commission of offenceWeapon not proven to be used in murderRelevant fact distinctively related to disclosureRecovery from iron box accessible to family membersChain of recovery incompleteFSL report insufficient aloneAcquittal

Judgment

[2025] 12 S.C.R. 206 : 2025 INSC 1318

Govind
v.
State of Haryana
(Criminal Appeal No. 5641 of 2024)
14 November 2025
[J.K. Maheshwari* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the judgment of Trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court,
convicting the appellant for the charges u/s.302, IPC and s.25, Arms
Act and the sentence as directed, is based on cogent material and
evidence sufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnotes†
Evidence – Alleged recovery made from a place accessible
to others – Mere recovery and the FSL report, if can sustain
the conviction – Appellant convicted u/s.302, IPC and s.25,
Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life –
Mere recovery and the FSL report, if by itself can sustain the
conviction of the appellant when other co-accused having
motive was acquitted and the eye-witness turned hostile
and did not support the prosecution case; no evidence of
‘last seen’ was adduced and the alleged motive against the
appellant was not proved:
Held: Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt – PW-1, the brother of the deceased and the
alleged eye-witness of her murder along with his brother, PW-5
have not supported the case of prosecution to prove the presence
of the appellant on the spot – Any other circumstance connecting
the accused in commission of the offence and to show his
presence on spot or with deceased has not been proved by the
prosecution – Accused was not named in the FIR initially – His
name came up after five days of the incident on suggestion by
PW-1 – Pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant,
a country-made pistol and two live cartridges were allegedly
recovered – However, the prosecution did not establish that the
said recovery distinctly relates to the commission of the offence
or that the weapon so recovered was the same which was used

* Author
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 207

Govind v. State of Haryana

to commit murder so as to constitute a relevant fact distinctively
related to the disclosure – The recovery was effected from an
iron box lying in a room in the house of the appellant accessible
to other family members, wherein various household articles
were kept, which were neither seized nor proved examining any
independent witness from neighborhood – After the recovery, the
pistol and cartridges were kept in the Malkhana, but the record
does not indicate on which date these were handed over to PW-6
for deposit to the FSL and the same article was sent for forensic
examination – Chain of recovery linking the seizure, storage, and
deposit of the material exhibits thus remains incomplete and was
not duly proved – Though the FSL report indicates that the pistol
and cartridges recovered correlate with the bullets found in the
body of the deceased, 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 – Judgment of the High Court and the Trial Court insofar
they relate to the conviction and sentence of the appellant, set
aside – Appellant acquitted. [Paras 22, 23, 25]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Words and Phrases – “distinctly”
as used in s.27 – Meaning. [Para 15]

Case Law Cited
Manjunath & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [2023] 14 SCR 727 : 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1421; Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P. [2021] 14
SCR 767 : (2021) 13 SCC 716; Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of
West Bengal [2023] 2 SCR 20 : (2023) 6 SCC 605 – relied on.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh [1999] 1 SCR 1033 :
(1999) 4 SCC 370; State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Fakira Dhiwar
[2001] Supp. 5 SCR 12 : (2002) 1 SCC 622; Lochan Srivas v.
State of Chhattisgarh [2021] 14 SCR 809 : (2022) 15 SCC
401 – distinguished.
Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh [2025] 2 SCR 461 : (2025) 3
SCC 314 – referred to.

Books and Periodical Cited
Concise Oxford English Dictionary (10th Edition, Revised in 2002,
Edited by Judy Pearsall; P Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexicon
(3rd Edition, 2005) – referred to.
208 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act, 1959; Evidence Act, 1872.

List of Keywords
Guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt; Country-made pistol and
live cartridges allegedly recovered; Not established that recovery
relates to commission of offence; Not established that weapon
recovered was used to commit murder; Relevant fact; Related to
the disclosure; Recovery; Iron box in a room accessible to other
family members; No independent witness from neighborhood;
Chain of recovery incomplete and not duly proved; No proof that
recovered pistol was used in the commission of offence; Alleged
recovery made from a place accessible to others; Mere recovery
and FSL report; Acquittal.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
5641 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2023 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRAD No. 913 of 2018

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv., Tanuj Agarwal, Apoorva Singhal,
R.Venkataraman, Alok Kumar, Ashfaq, Saurabh Gupta.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Drishti Rawal, Ms. Drishti Saraf, Mayur
Goyal.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction of the
appellant dated 08.11.20231 for the charges under Section 302 of

1 In CRA-D-913-DB-2018 (O&M) passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 209

Govind v. State of Haryana

the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and for Section 25 of the Arms
Act, 1959. The High Court1 vide impugned judgment affirmed the Trial
Court2 judgment dated 29.08.20183 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

2 Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar
3 In Sessions Case No. 39/2016
210 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 implication. During
the trial, prosecution examined 22 witnesses while accused did not
bring any witness in defence.
5. Learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 29.08.2018 acquitted the
co-accused Sanoj @ Sonu and Amit, and convicted the appellant
only. Vide order dated 31.08.2018, the Court directed him to undergo
the imprisonment for life under Section 302 of IPC and six months
RI under Section 25 of the Arms Act with default stipulations. The
said judgment was affirmed by the High Court mainly relying upon
the recovery of the pistol, two live cartridges and the FSL Report.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT
6. Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned senior counsel arguing on behalf of
the appellant, vociferously urged that conviction solely based on
recovery of pistol and live cartridges supported by FSL Report, is
not justified. In particular, when eyewitness Pradeep PW-1 and other
important witness Sandeep PW-5 have not supported the case of
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 211

Govind v. State of Haryana

prosecution. From the disclosure of the appellant which resulted into
recovery, it is not clear that the same pistol was used in commission
of the offence. The alleged recovery is from unlocked iron box lying
in a room of the house of the accused accessible to other family
members. However, in absence of any cogent evidence to connect
the appellant to commission of the offence or the scene of incident,
mere recovery of the weapon cannot be the sole basis of conviction.
7. It is further submitted, after the incident of murder, on receiving
message, the Police personnel reached on the spot and the
congregation of various villagers was there. As per cross-examination
of the complainant, he was not present at the scene of crime and
reached later on receiving information, hence, he has not seen the
incident. In addition, he has not supported the case of prosecution in
Court. The alleged recovery was not made in presence of independent
witness. Therefore, recovery of pistol and cartridges has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
8. It is urged when an eyewitness to the incident is not supporting the
case of prosecution, in that situation, to prove the charge of murder
on basis of circumstances, motive must be proved. In the facts of the
case, Daya Kaur (mother-in-law) and Ved Prakash (jeth), Sanoj @
Sonu s/o Ved Prakash and Amit (nephew of Sanoj) may have some
motive because they have lost the case against the deceased.
Nonetheless, Daya Kaur and Ved Prakash were absolved in the
investigation and no chargesheet was filed against them. Other two
accused who were of the same family have been acquitted by the
Trial Court and no appeal was preferred against, either by the State
or the complainant. In support of his contentions, learned senior
counsel placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the cases
of Manjunath & Ors. v. State of Karnataka4 and Raja Khan v. State
of Chhattisgarh5 and urged that the judgment of Trial Court, as
affirmed by the High Court, may be set aside, acquitting the accused.
9. Per contra, Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, learned counsel arguing for the
State, defended the findings of the impugned judgment contending that
as per the disclosure, the pistol and two live cartridges were recovered
from an iron box lying in the house of the appellant himself. The bullets

4 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1421
5 (2025) 3 SCC 314
212 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

found in the body of the deceased were similar to the live cartridges
and can be fired by the recovered pistol. The FSL report correlates
the cartridges found in the body of deceased and hence, proves the
guilt. Thus, even if the eye-witnesses may not have supported the
case of prosecution, the recovery of pistol and its use is enough to
prove the complicity of the appellant in commission of the offence.
10. It is submitted that the recovery of pistol is not from a public place
as contended by the appellant, but from a house wherein appellant
was staying along with other family members. Therefore, the plea
that the iron box from which the recovery was made was accessible
to other family members, is of no substance. In support of his
contentions, reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court
in the cases of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh6, State of
Maharashtra v. Bharat Fakira Dhiwar7 and Lochan Srivas v. State
of Chhattisgarh8 and submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.

APPRECIATION OF THE ARGUMENTS
11. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties, in the backdrop
of the above facts and arguments advanced across the Bar, the
central question that falls for consideration is whether the judgment
of Trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court, convicting the appellant
for the charges under Section 302 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms
Act and the sentence as directed, is based on cogent material and
evidence sufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt?
12. The incident in the present case is of 12.06.2016 at about 6 AM in
the morning in village M.P. Majra. As per the FIR that was recorded
on the basis of the statement of Pradeep (PW-1), while deceased
was throwing cow dung in a manure pit, three persons came in
one car. One of them was driving and two were sitting on the rear
seat of car, which took a round. The persons sitting on the rear
seat came out, one caught hold of the deceased and another shot
bullet from his pistol. As alleged, Pardeep (PW-1) saw both of them
and can identify if produced. He could not see the driver of the
vehicle. He disclosed the number of the vehicle. After five days, his

6 (1999) 4 SCC 370
7 (2002) 1 SCC 622
8 (2022) 15 SCC 401
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 213

Govind v. State of Haryana

supplementary statement was recorded on 17.06.2016 wherein he
named Sanoj @ Sonu, Amit and Appellant being the persons who
committed murder of his sister by gun shot and also alleged that he
came to such conclusion on basis of investigation done by himself.
As such he claimed to be the eyewitness of the incident.
13. The said Pradeep (PW-1) came in the witness box to depose before
Court but he has not supported the prosecution’s story and turned
hostile. His brother Sandeep (PW-5) was also an alleged witness
having turned up to the place of incident after hearing noises made
by bullet shots, but did not support the prosecution allegations and
turned hostile. Both the said witnesses have resiled from their police
statements and denied that Sanoj @ Sonu, Amit and Govind have
committed murder of the deceased. PW-1 has further stated that
the Police officials have obtained his signature on the blank papers
and the FIR alleged to be registered on the basis of his statement
was not given by him to the Police. On being declared hostile, in
cross-examination done by public prosecutor nothing has been
elucidated to prove the allegations of commission of murder as
alleged. Nonetheless, during cross-examination by the defence, he
stated that the information of death of his sister was given to him at
about 8 AM by a villager and then he reached on the spot, where
villagers were already present. When he reached, Police personnel
had shown him a pistol allegedly used in commission of the murder
of his sister. He has also denied his supplementary statement naming
the accused persons. Even otherwise, for proving the allegations,
nothing has been brought on record to show how and in what
manner PW-1 made his own investigation naming the appellant and
two other acquitted co-accused persons. No independent witnesses
have deposed anything to prove the prosecution allegation against
appellant. It must be kept in mind that 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 and his complicity in commission of
offence. Be that as it may, the FIR was based on the statement of
Pradeep allegedly against three unknown persons, out of them, he
could identify two as stated by Pradeep (PW-1). But due to naming
the accused subsequently the test identification parade was not
conducted. Later, on point of identification, PW-1 has turned hostile
during cross-examination. Therefore, as appreciated, Pradeep (PW-1)
214 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

being the alleged eyewitness and Sandeep (PW-5) allegedly being
the first responder to the incident, have not supported the case of
prosecution and could not prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, on the above set of evidence implication of the appellant
has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
14. For purpose of appreciating other circumstances, including motive,
the Prosecution contends that Daya Kaur (mother-in-law) and Ved
Prakash (jeth) along with Sanoj @ Sonu and Amit were having grudge
against the deceased because of losing the case in Court against her
and the Appellant is friend of co-accused Sanoj @ Sonu. However, no
order passed in favour of the deceased has been produced except to
make such bald allegations. In addition, against Daya Kaur (mother-
in-law) and Ved Prakash, Police could not collect any material and no
chargesheet was filed against them. While Sanoj @ Sonu and Amit
have been acquitted by the Trial Court. The alleged motive has been
attributed against appellant merely that he was a friend of Sanoj @
Sonu and may have some quid pro quo in anticipated reciprocation
of help from Sanoj @ Sonu in the future. The details for such quid
pro quo have not been brought on record. As per disclosure of the
appellant, Exhibit P-7/D, it is revealed that the appellant and the co-
accused Sanoj @ Sonu belong to the same village. Sanoj @ Sonu
conveyed to the appellant regarding success of the deceased in a
land case and sought help from him for committing murder of Promila.
In those circumstances, Sanoj @ Sonu decided to commit murder
of the deceased and as such help of the appellant was sought. In
the disclosure of Sanoj @ Sonu, Exhibit PW-18/A, it is alleged that
the pistol recovered from the appellant was handed over by him to
the appellant and he has one more pistol with him. The disclosure
statement Exhibit P-7/D of the appellant recorded in custody as far
as it distinctly discloses the commission of offence cannot be used
against the accused. It is only the recovery made in furtherance to
the said disclosure may have some relevance. Even otherwise, in
his disclosure he has not stated that the pistol used in committing
murder of the deceased was the same which was concealed and the
same was recovered by Police on his insistence. As such it is not
clear that the pistol recovered from the appellant was the same which
was used in commission of the offence of murder of the deceased.
15. As per Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the confession given in the
Police custody, cannot be proved against a person accused of an
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 215

Govind v. State of Haryana

offence unless it is given in the immediate presence of the Magistrate.
However, Section 27 deals with how much of the information as
received from the accused, in Police custody may be proved. The
said Section is relevant, therefore, reproduced below:
27. How much of information received from accused
may be proved. - Provided that, when any fact is deposed
to as discovered in consequence of information received
from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of
a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it
amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the
fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
On a glance of the language of the said section, which starts with
the expression “provided that”, it is apparent that this Section is
an exception to the preceding Sections 25 and 26. The language
further indicates that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in
consequence of information received from a person who is in custody
of the Police in connection of an offence, it must relate distinctly to
the fact so discovered. For relevancy, the “facts thereby discovered”
is preceded with the words “so much of such information, whether it
amounts to confession or not as relates distinctly”. Special emphasis
must be given to the word ‘distinctly’. The word “distinctly” has its
own importance which is a derivative of the word ‘distinct’. As per
Concise Oxford English Dictionary9 it means recognizable, different
in nature, individual or separate, readily distinguishable by the
senses. As per Advance Law Lexicon10, “distinctly” means clearly,
explicitly, definitely, precisely, unmistakably, in a distinct manner.
Therefore, “distinctly”, as used in Section 27, is meant to exclude
certain language and to limit and confine the information which
may be proved within definite limits and not necessarily to include
everything which may relate to that information. The said word
“distinctly” indicates directly, indubitably, strictly and unmistakably,
apparently, used in Section 27 to limit and define the scope of
probable information. Therefore, only that much information as is
clearly connected with the fact discovered can be treated as relevant
under the phrase ‘facts discovered’.

9 Concise Oxford English Dictionary (10th Edition, Revised in 2002, Edited by Judy Pearsall)
10 P Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexicon (3rd Edition, 2005)
216 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

16. In sequel of the said discussion, the veracity of the disclosure made
by appellant in Exhibit PW-7/D and recovery may be examined.
Moreover, the memo of recovery, Exhibit PW-7/E, was drawn by
Inspector Lalit Kumar (PW-7). He testified in Court and stated that
one country made pistol and two cartridges kept concealed in an
iron box lying in one of the rooms inside the house of accused was
recovered by him. The said article was sealed putting stamp T2
and kept in Malkhana of Police Station, Beri. In cross-examination,
he admits that the place of recovery was a dwelling house where
family members were also staying. At the time of the said recovery,
no independent witness from neighborhood has been joined. The
iron box was found to be in an open and unlocked state and it was
accessible by family members also, wherein other household articles
were also kept though not seized separately by him. Head Constable
Naresh Kumar (PW-15), one of the recovery witnesses, has also
deposed in similar lines. Moreover, Constable Baljeet Singh (PW-6)
is the person who deposited the recovered pistol in FSL. As per his
testimony, the recovered pistol was deposited in the Malkhana of
the police station on 19.06.2016. 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,
particularly when no independent witness has been examined to prove
recovery. The High Court while proving guilt against the appellant
has relied upon the recovery and the FSL report which co-relates
the two cartridges recovered and the bullets found in the body of
the deceased. In the above factual backdrop, it becomes necessary
to examine, when the eye-witness has turned hostile and has not
supported the prosecution case and no evidence of ‘last seen’ has
been adduced, and the alleged motive against the appellant remains
unproved, however, mere recovery and the FSL report can, by itself,
sustain the conviction of the appellant – more particularly when other
co-accused having motive has been acquitted.
17. In the present case, the alleged recovery was made from a place
accessible to other family members, hence, the extent to which
such recovery can be relied upon to establish the appellant’s guilt
requires careful scrutiny in light of judicial precedents. In this regard,
we can profitably refer the judgment of this Court in the case of
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 217

Govind v. State of Haryana

Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P.11, wherein the conviction was based
on recovery of knives from the accused, one from room and two
from an open field, which were later found not relevant to connect
the accused in commission of offence when such recoveries were
from a place accessible to others and also from place of public use.
The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:
58. As already discussed hereinabove, since no public
witness has been examined to support the said memo,
the statement made therein will have to be scrutinised with
greater caution and circumspection. All the statements
made therein with regard to the confession of committing
the crime would not be admissible in evidence. Only such
information, which distinctly relates to the discovery of facts
will be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act,
1872 (hereinafter referred to as “the Evidence Act”). The
evidence of PW 9 Brahmesh Kumar Yadav (IO) would
reveal that immediately after the FIR was lodged, he
had come to the spot of incident for further investigation.
According to him, Accused 1, 3 and 4 were arrested at
around 2.00 a.m. on 24-1-2014. Even according to him,
the police party was very much there at the spot. One of
the alleged recoveries is from the room where deceased
Asgari used to sleep. The other two recoveries are from
open field, just behind the house of deceased Shaukeen
Khan i.e. the place of incident. It could thus be seen that
the recoveries were made from the places, which were
accessible to one and all and as such, no reliance could
be placed on such recoveries.
18. In Manjunath & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (supra), this Court
while dealing with the recovery from the place accessible to public
or areas accessible to others observed that such recovery alone is
not sufficient and it becomes suspicious. In the said case, eucalyptus
sticks found from eucalyptus plantation and iron chains recovered
from houses shared with other occupants were not found sufficient
to prove the guilt and to bring home the charge of murder. The court
in para 28 held as thus:

11 (2021) 13 SCC 716
218 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“28. As reflected from record, and in particular the
testimony of PW-15 it is clear that the discoveries (stick
as shown by A10, for instance) was a eucalyptus stick,
found from the eucalyptus plantation, which indisputably, is
a public place and was found a week later. A second and
third stick purportedly found half kilometre away on that
day itself, was found by a bush, once again, a place of
public access. Two further sticks recovered at the instance
A6 and A7, were also from public places. An iron chain
produced from the house of A1 and A2, is not free from the
possibility that any of the other occupants of their house
were not responsible for it. We, further cannot lose sight
of the fact that sticks, whether bamboo or otherwise, are
commonplace objects in village life, and therefore, such
objects, being hardly out of the ordinary, and that too
discovered in places of public access, cannot be used to
place the gauntlet of guilt on the accused persons.”
19. Similarly, in Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal12, the
appellant was accused of murdering his wife with a bhojali (knife)
which was found from an open place accessible to others. The Trial
Court acquitted the accused though the High Court reversed the
findings. While confirming the order of the Trial Court, this Court
observed as under:
“20. The trial court disbelieved the recovery of clothes
and weapon on two grounds. Firstly, that there was no
memorandum statement as required under section 27 of
the Evidence Act, 1872 and secondly, the recovery of the
knife was from an open place accessible to one and all.
We find that the approach adopted by the trial court was
in accordance with law……”
20. While accepting the reliance of the said judgments, it is necessary
to also refer the judgments as relied by the Respondent. The case
of Jeet Singh (supra) was a case where the accused murdered his
own wife by means of insecticide poison within the house where the
accused and deceased were living together. The bottle of the insecticide
was recovered beneath dry leaves within the compound of the same

12 (2023) 6 SCC 605
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 219

Govind v. State of Haryana

house. Therefore, the said recovery in the circumstances was found
relevant along with other circumstances brought to prove the guilt.
21. Similarly, in the case of Bharat Fakira Dhiwar (supra), a child
of three years old went missing from home. The two last seen
witnesses deposed that the accused was going with a bag on his
shoulder wherefrom blood was dripping down. In the said sequence,
the recovery of the body of the deceased from sugarcane field was
connected with the accused therein. In the case of Lochan Srivas
(supra), the dead body of the victim was recovered from bushes
near a pole nearby main road contained in a sack as indicated by
the accused person consequent to story of some worship. Such
knowledge was found to be unnatural and conviction of the accused
person was maintained by this court. Therefore, in the factual backdrop
of the above-mentioned cases, recoveries were found relevant along
with other evidence connecting the accused in commission of offence
to prove the guilt. As indicated, in our view, all the said judgments
relied by the respondent are distinguishable on facts.
22. In conclusion, we reiterate that in this case, Pradeep (PW-1) is the
brother of the deceased and the alleged eye-witness of her murder.
He along with his brother, Sandeep (PW-5) have not supported the
case of prosecution to prove the presence of the appellant on the
spot. Any other circumstance connecting the accused in commission
of the offence and to show his presence on spot or with deceased
has not been proved by the prosecution. Initially in the FIR, the
accused was not named. His name came up after five days of the
incident on suggestion by the eyewitness Pradeep (PW-1) in form
of supplementary statement implicating the appellant and other
co-accused. Pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant, a
country-made pistol and two live cartridges were allegedly recovered.
However, the prosecution has not established that the said recovery
distinctly relates to the commission of the offence or that the weapon
so recovered was the same which was used to commit murder so as
to constitute a relevant fact distinctively related to the disclosure. The
recovery was effected from an iron box lying in a room accessible to
other family members, wherein various household articles were kept,
which were neither seized nor proved examining any independent
witness from neighborhood.
23. After the recovery, the pistol and cartridges were kept in the
Malkhana, but the record does not indicate on which date these
220 [2025] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

were handed over to PW-6 Baljeet Singh for deposit to the Forensic
Science Laboratory (FSL) and the same article was sent for forensic
examination. The chain of recovery linking the seizure, storage, and
deposit of the material exhibits thus remains incomplete and was
not duly proved. Though the FSL report indicates that the pistol
and cartridges recovered correlate with the bullets found in the
body of the deceased, 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.
Furthermore, the alleged motive, as projected by the prosecution,
primarily pertains to the co-accused persons, who have either not
been chargesheeted or have been acquitted by the Trial Court. The
purported motive attributed to the appellant is founded merely on a
speculative quid pro quo arrangement with the acquitted co-accused
and lacks support from any credible evidence.
24. In our considered view, the Trial Court and the High Court failed to
appreciate the facts and evidence, as discussed hereinabove in right
perspective. As such, the findings of conviction of the appellant for the
alleged offences and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life cannot
be sustained. In the totality of the circumstances, the prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

CONCLUSION
25. In light of the above discussion, the Trial Court and the High Court both
have committed error in convicting the appellant without adverting to the
fundamental aspects applying the principles of criminal jurisprudence,
as discussed hereinabove. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.
The judgment of the High Court and also of the Trial Court insofar
they relate to the conviction and sentence of the appellant stand set
aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges and directed to be
released forthwith from custody, unless required in any other offence.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey