Govind vs. State Of Haryana

REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1318

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5641 OF 2024
GOVIND ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction of the
1
appellant dated 08.11.2023 for the charges under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and for Section 25 of the Arms Act,
1
1959. The High Court vide impugned judgment affirmed the Trial
2 3
Court judgment dated 29.08.2018 and also the sentence as
directed.

1


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
2


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 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
3


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
4


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
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
5


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
6


4
Manjunath & Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Raja Khan v. State
5
of Chhattisgarh 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 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

4
(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1421
5
(2025) 3 SCC 314
7


accessible to other family members, is of no substance. In support of
his contentions, reliance has been placed on the judgments of this
6
Court in the cases of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh ,
7
State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Fakira Dhiwar and Lochan
8
Srivas v. State of Chhattisgarh 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

6
(1999) 4 SCC 370
7
(2002) 1 SCC 622
8
(2022) 15 SCC 401
8


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 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
9


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
10


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) 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
11


@ 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
12


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
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:

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
13


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
9
Concise Oxford English Dictionary it means recognizable, different
in nature, individual or separate, readily distinguishable by the
10
senses. As per Advance Law Lexicon , “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 th
Concise Oxford English Dictionary (10 Edition, Revised in 2002, Edited by Judy Pearsall)
10 rd
P Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexicon (3 Edition, 2005)
14


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
15


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 Jaikam
16


11
Khan v. State of U.P. , 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,

11
(2021) 13 SCC 716
17


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:
“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
12
Bengal , 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

12
(2023) 6 SCC 605
18


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 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
19


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
20


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 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
21


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
22


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.
.…………………………….J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)


.…………………………….J.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)
NEW DELHI,
NOVEMBER 14, 2025.

23