In a significant judgment clarifying the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the evidentiary value of forensic reports, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted a man of murder. The Court held that a conviction cannot be sustained merely on a ballistic (FSL) report matching a recovered weapon to bullets, especially when key eyewitnesses turn hostile and the chain of custody is broken.
The bench, comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, allowed the appeal in Govind v. State of Haryana, setting aside the appellant’s conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Court emphasized that for information leading to a discovery to be admissible under Section 27, it must “distinctly” relate to the fact discovered, a test the prosecution failed to meet.
Background of the Case
The case involved the murder of Promila on June 12, 2016. The deceased’s brother, Pradeep (PW-1), lodged an FIR alleging a property dispute with the deceased’s in-laws, Daya Kaur and Ved Prakash, and claiming they conspired with three unknown men to commit the murder. Five days later, Pradeep gave a supplementary statement, naming Sanoj @ Sonu, Amit, and the appellant, Govind, as the assailants.
Upon Govind’s arrest, a country-made pistol and two live cartridges were allegedly recovered based on his disclosure. However, the investigation absolved the in-laws named in the FIR. While co-accused Sanoj @ Sonu and Amit were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, Govind was convicted. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirmed this conviction, relying heavily on the weapon recovery and the FSL report.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant argued that the conviction was flawed as it was based solely on the recovery and FSL report after the main eyewitnesses, Pradeep (PW-1) and Sandeep (PW-5), turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. It was also argued that the recovery was from an unlocked box accessible to other family members and that the prosecution had failed to establish any motive for the appellant.
The State of Haryana contended that the FSL report, which correlated the recovered cartridges with bullets from the deceased’s body, was sufficient to prove guilt, even if the eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution’s case.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court found that the prosecution’s case failed on several fundamental points of law and evidence.
First, the Court noted the collapse of the core evidence: the alleged eyewitness, Pradeep (PW-1), “has not supported the prosecution’s story and turned hostile.” The judgment records that PW-1 denied naming the accused and, in cross-examination, stated he only reached the spot after being informed of the murder, contradicting his claim of being an eyewitness.
With the eyewitness testimony gone, the case hinged on the recovery of the pistol. The Supreme Court conducted a detailed analysis of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which governs how much of an accused’s disclosure statement in custody can be proved. The Court held that the word “distinctly” is key. Quoting from the judgment: “Special emphasis must be given to the word ‘distinctly’… The word ‘distinctly’ indicates directly, indubitably, strictly and unmistakably… used in Section 27 to limit and define the scope of probable information.”
Applying this test, the Court found that the appellant’s disclosure statement (Exhibit P-7/D) did not state that the pistol being recovered was the same weapon used in the murder. Therefore, the Court concluded, “it is not clear that the pistol recovered from the appellant was the same which was used in commission of the offence of murder.” The prosecution, the Court held, failed to establish that the recovery “distinctly relates to the commission of the offence.”
Second, the Court directly addressed the High Court’s reliance on the FSL report. It ruled that such a report, in isolation, is insufficient. The Court held: “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.”
The Court found other critical failures:
- Broken Chain of Custody: A 19-day gap existed between the weapon’s seizure (June 19, 2016) and its deposit at the FSL (July 8, 2016). The Court found: “The chain of recovery linking the seizure, storage, and deposit of the material exhibits thus remains incomplete and was not duly proved.”
- No Motive: The alleged motive was attributed to the co-accused who were acquitted. The motive for the appellant was described as “merely… a speculative quid pro quo arrangement… and lacks support from any credible evidence.”
- Suspicious Recovery: The pistol was found in an “unlocked iron box” accessible to other family members, and “no independent witness from neighborhood has been joined.”
Concluding that the Trial Court and High Court “failed to appreciate the facts and evidence… in right perspective,” the Supreme Court held that the prosecution “failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.” The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith.
