Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-005641-005641 – 2024 |
| Diary Number | 14385/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Precedent Value | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedents on recovery and Section 27 Evidence Act |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Criminal law; criminal procedure; interpretation of Evidence Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction can be based solely on a weapon recovery and FSL report when (a) eyewitnesses turn hostile, (b) no test-identification parade, and (c) recovery is from an unlocked box in a house accessible to others. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The deceased was shot on 12 June 2016; FIR based on a telephonic tip, later supplemented naming three accused. The appellant was arrested on 18 June 2016 and a pistol with cartridges was recovered from an unlocked iron box in his house. Two key witnesses turned hostile, co-accused were acquitted, yet the appellant alone was convicted on the basis of the suspected weapon recovery and FSL report. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in criminal cases |
| Distinguishes |
|
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Section 27 Evidence Act requires that custodial disclosures “relate distinctly” to the fact discovered; general motives or confessions are inadmissible.
- Recovery from an unlocked box in a dwelling accessible to family members, without independent witnesses, undermines chain of custody and reliability.
- FSL correlation between recovered weapon/cartridges and bullets in the victim is insufficient alone to prove use in the offence.
- Hostile testimony of eyewitnesses negates the foundation for circumstantial evidence when “last seen” or other ocular proof is absent.
- Alleged motive based on acquitted co-accused or in-laws must be supported by direct evidence, not mere speculation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Hostile Witnesses
- Both PW-1 (informant-eyewitness) and PW-5 turned hostile; no identification of accused at the scene.
-
Section 27 Analysis
- Information from custodial disclosures admissible only if it “distinctly” leads to discovery of the fact; “distinctly” means precise, unmistakable link.
-
Recovery Scrutiny
- Pistol and cartridges seized from an unlocked iron box in the accused’s home, accessible to others, without independent witnesses; incomplete chain of custody to FSL deposit.
-
FSL Correlation Alone Insufficient
- Even if the FSL report matches the cartridges/bullets, there is no proof that the recovered weapon was used in the murder.
-
Motive and Circumstance
- Alleged property-dispute motive centered on acquitted co-accused; appellant’s connection was speculative and unsupported.
-
Precedent Alignment
- Followed Jaikam Khan, Manjunath and Nikhil Mondal on limiting recoveries from public or shared spaces; distinguished Jeet Singh, Bharat Fakira Dhiwar, Lochan Srivas on their differing facts.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- Hostile eyewitnesses cannot support presence or identification.
- Recovery alone, from a family-accessible unlocked box without witnesses, lacks probative value.
- Section 27 confines admissible custodial information to that “distinctly” related to discovery.
- No proof the weapon recovered was the one used in the offence.
Respondent (State)
- Disclosure led to pistol and cartridges in accused’s house; weapon deposit and FSL report prove guilt.
- Pistol seized from appellant’s dwelling, not public place; chain of custody maintained.
- Eyewitness non-support is outweighed by physical and forensic evidence.
Factual Background
On 12 June 2016 at 6 AM in M.P. Majra (Haryana), the deceased was shot dead. An FIR was registered by her brother based on a telephonic tip of three assailants arriving in a car. Five days later the informant named Sanoj @ Sonu, Amit and Govind (appellant). On 18 June 2016 police arrested the appellant and recovered a country-made pistol and two cartridges from an unlocked iron box in his home. The Trial Court acquitted co-accused but convicted the appellant on the basis of weapon recovery and an FSL report; the High Court affirmed.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC: Charge of murder.
- Section 25 Arms Act: Unlawful possession of firearm.
- Evidence Act, Section 25–26: Confessions in police custody inadmissible except before a Magistrate.
- Evidence Act, Section 27: Admissibility of custodial information “distinctly” leading to discovery of a fact; interpreted strictly to limit scope of such evidence.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on recovery and Section 27 Evidence Act affirmed.