The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act was unsustainable. The Court ruled that the recovery of a firearm from a place accessible to others, without independent corroboration or proof it was the murder weapon, is insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts Of The Case:
The case concerns the murder of Promila on June 12, 2016, in village M.P. Majra, Haryana. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered by her brother, Pradeep (PW-1), alleging that three unidentified men in a car shot her. Five days later, in a supplementary statement, Pradeep named the appellant, Govind, along with Sanoj and Amit, as the perpetrators. During the investigation, a country-made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered from an unlocked iron box in a room of the appellant’s house, accessible to other family members. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on this recovery and a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report linking the cartridges to bullets found in the deceased. However, the key eyewitness, Pradeep, and another witness, Sandeep (PW-5), turned hostile during trial, failing to identify the accused or support the prosecution’s version. The Trial Court convicted only the appellant, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court, in appeal, found the evidence insufficient, noting the lack of motive, the hostile witnesses, and the recovery from a non-exclusive location, ultimately leading to the appellant’s acquittal.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of the case commenced with the registration of FIR No. 206 of 2016 at Police Station Beri. Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant and two co-accused. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, which framed charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. After trial, the Sessions Court, vide judgment dated 29.08.2018, acquitted the two co-accused but convicted and sentenced the appellant. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by way of the present criminal appeal, which culminated in the judgment of acquittal dated 14.11.2025.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court: Key Takeaway from a Property Dispute: Exhaust Legal Remedies First, Go to Court Later
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made critical observations on the evidentiary infirmities. It noted that the sole eyewitness and another material witness turned hostile, failing to prove the appellant’s presence or complicity. The Court held that the recovery of the firearm from an unlocked box in a shared household space, without independent witness corroboration, was inherently unreliable. It further ruled that the forensic report, by itself, could not conclusively link the recovered pistol to the crime in the absence of proof that it was the actual weapon used. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish a distinct connection between the disclosure statement and the discovery of a fact, as required under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and thus did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the courts below. It acquitted the appellant, Govind, of all charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Court ordered his immediate release from custody, unless detained in any other case. It held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to the absence of credible eyewitness testimony, the unreliable recovery of the weapon from a non-exclusive location, and the insufficient corroborative value of the forensic report alone.
Case Details:
Case Title: Govind vs. State of Haryana CITATION: 2025 INSC 1318 Criminal Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5641 of 2024 Date of Judgement: November 14, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice J.K. Maheshwari
Download The Judgement Here