The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the conviction of Govind, who had been serving a life sentence for the 2016 murder of a woman in Haryana’s Jhajjar district. The bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi delivered the ruling after a detailed hearing, where the judges repeatedly questioned the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence and the manner in which the local police handled the recovery of the alleged murder weapon.
Inside Court No. 5, the mood shifted several times first tense, then almost resigned as the State admitted gaps in the chain of custody. At one point, Justice Maheshwari remarked,
“The bench observed, ‘When the foundation itself is shaky, recovery alone cannot become the backbone of a murder conviction.’”
Background
The case dates back to 12 June 2016, when Promila, a resident of village M.P. Majra, was shot dead early in the morning. Her brother Pradeep initially lodged an FIR against three unidentified men who allegedly arrived in an Alto car and shot her near the cattle shed.
Five days later, in a surprising twist, Pradeep gave a supplementary statement naming three individuals including Govind claiming he had identified them through his own “inquiry”. However, this later became the prosecution’s biggest problem.
During trial, Pradeep expected to be the star eyewitness turned hostile. So did his brother Sandeep. The trial court acquitted two co-accused but convicted Govind based solely on the recovery of a country-made pistol and two cartridges from an iron box in his house. The High Court upheld this conviction.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court bench dissected each piece of evidence with unusual patience. The judges were particularly concerned about three issues:
(1) hostile witnesses,
(2) unclear chain of custody of the firearm, and
(3) recovery from a place accessible to multiple people.
Hostile Eyewitnesses
Pradeep, who had first claimed to see the attackers, admitted in cross-examination that he reached the spot after being informed of his sister’s death. He denied seeing Govind or the others, and even said the police took his signature on blank papers. Sandeep gave a similar statement.
“The bench observed, ‘If the eyewitness does not support the prosecution and no other circumstantial link is established, conviction becomes unsafe.’”
Questionable Recovery of Pistol
The pistol was recovered from an unlocked iron box located in a common room of the house accessible to other family members. No independent witness from the neighbourhood was present during the search.
The judges found another glaring gap: the pistol remained in the police malkhana for nearly three weeks before being sent for forensic analysis, with no record of when it was taken out for dispatch.
Justice Bishnoi noted,
“A recovery made from an open, accessible household space loses probative value unless the link to the accused is unbroken and convincing.”
Failure to Prove Motive
The alleged motive revolved around a property dispute between the deceased and her in-laws none of whom were chargesheeted. The Court pointed out that even if a motive existed, it belonged to others who were already acquitted.
Decision
After reviewing the full record, the Supreme Court concluded that the conviction was unsustainable. It held that:
- The eyewitness account had completely collapsed.
- The prosecution failed to show that the recovered pistol was distinctly connected to the murder.
- The chain of custody was incomplete.
- Motive was weak and largely speculative.
In a firm concluding remark,
“The bench observed, ‘Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.’”
Govind’s conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act was set aside, and he was ordered to be released immediately, unless wanted in any other case.
Case Title: Govind v. State of Haryana
Case Number:- Criminal Appeal No.: 5641 of 2024