The Supreme Court observed that mere recovery of a weapon, even when supported by a forensic science laboratory (FSL) report, cannot by itself sustain a murder conviction in the absence of additional corroborative evidence. A bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the life sentence imposed on a man convicted of murder, on the ground that the High Court had erred in upholding the conviction solely on the basis of the pistol allegedly used in the crime and the FSL report linking the recovered cartridges to the bullets removed from the deceased’s body.
According to the prosecution, on the morning of June 12, 2016, at around 6 a.m. in the village of M.P. Majra in Jhajjar, Haryana, three persons arrived in a car and allegedly shot the deceased with a pistol. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the deceased’s brother following a telephonic message to the police control room. The investigation led to the arrest of the appellant and two co-accused; from the appellant a country-made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered, while another co-accused surrendered the car and weapon. The appellant’s defence challenged the conviction on the basis that the key eyewitnesses—PW-1 and PW-5—turned hostile during the trial and did not support the prosecution’s case. PW-1, who was the deceased’s brother, said he arrived at the scene after hearing of the incident and could not identify the assailants. There was no independent witness presented to corroborate his version of events.
The Court noted that the discovery of the weapon was made from an unlocked iron box in the appellant’s house, in a location accessible to family members, and that no independent witness had been examined to establish the chain of custody or to confirm that the weapon was indeed the one used in the killing. The box was open and unlocked, and other household articles were stored alongside it but were not seized separately. The Court pointed out that recovery from a place accessible to others is, in itself, suspicious unless accompanied by reliable supporting evidence. The Court further noted that no evidence of “last seen” was adduced, no motive to commit the offence was proved on the part of the appellant, and that the alleged motive projected by the prosecution pertained largely to the co-accused persons, who were either not chargesheeted or acquitted by the trial court.
While the FSL report indicated that the pistol and cartridges recovered from the appellant correlated with the bullets found in the deceased’s body, the Court held that this evidence alone was insufficient to establish guilt. There was no proof that the recovered pistol was in fact used in the commission of the offence. The Court emphasised that mere recovery of a weapon and a matching FSL report, without direct or reliable links to the crime — such as independent witness testimony, proof of motive, location evidence, or last seen evidence — could not meet the standard of proof required in a criminal case. The Court therefore concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In the overall circumstances, the Court allowed the appeal, relieved the appellant from the life sentence, and ordered the acquittal of the convict.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.