FSL Report Alone Cannot Bridge Gaps in Evidence When Recovery is Dubious: Supreme Court

On 14 November 2025, the Supreme Court of India overturning the conviction of a man accused of murder under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. In a detailed judgment authored by Justice J.K. Maheshwari, with Justice Vijay Bishnoi concurring, the Court emphasised that recovery of a firearm and matching FSL report cannot, by themselves, sustain a conviction when the prosecution fails to prove a complete and credible chain of evidence.

The Court underlined that “a conviction cannot be based solely on recovery unless it is distinctly and indisputably connected to the commission of the crime”, especially when all eyewitnesses have turned hostile and the motive remains speculative and unproved.

“When the Chain Breaks, the Link Fails”: Eyewitness Turns Hostile, Recovery From Accessible Room Ruled Unreliable

The prosecution's case revolved around the alleged recovery of a country-made pistol and two live cartridges from the appellant Govind’s residence. This firearm was later linked through an FSL report to the bullets found in the body of the deceased, Promila. However, the Court observed that the prosecution’s reliance on this recovery was deeply flawed.

The Court noted:
“The iron box was unlocked, accessible to other family members, and contained several other household articles. No independent witnesses were involved in the recovery.”

In addition, the eyewitness to the murder—Pradeep (PW-1), the brother of the deceased—turned hostile, denying his earlier statements and claiming he arrived after the incident, casting doubt on the FIR itself. The Court remarked:
“Pradeep (PW-1) and Sandeep (PW-5) failed to support the case of prosecution and could not prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”

Despite naming the accused in a supplementary statement recorded five days later, no identification parade was conducted, and the only basis for implicating the appellant remained his alleged custodial disclosure.

“Recovery Must Distinctly Relate to the Crime, Not Just an Object Found”: Supreme Court Interprets Section 27 Evidence Act Rigorously

Interpreting Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court held that the term “distinctly” has a narrow and strict meaning, excluding vague or non-specific disclosures from being admissible.

“Only that much information as is clearly connected with the fact discovered can be treated as relevant under the phrase ‘facts discovered’,” the judgment declared.

In the present case, the accused did not state in his disclosure that the recovered pistol was the same weapon used in the crime. The recovery, therefore, did not “distinctly” relate to the fact discovered, as required by law.

“FSL Report is Not a Substitute for Broken Chain of Custody”: Seal, Storage, and Delay Raise Doubts

The weapon and cartridges recovered on 18 June 2016 were deposited in the police Malkhana but were only sent to the FSL 19 days later, on 8 July 2016. The prosecution failed to explain this delay or produce records to prove uninterrupted chain of custody. The Court held:

“Mere indication of seal T2 is not sufficient to connect the recovery and deposit of the same recovered articles in FSL.”

The bench further held that “FSL match alone cannot substitute foundational proof”, and without credible chain-of-custody evidence, the FSL result cannot carry probative value.

“Speculative Motive and Acquitted Co-Accused Cannot Sustain Conviction”: Motive Remained Unproven

The prosecution’s theory of motive was tied to a land dispute involving the deceased and her in-laws. While some co-accused (Sanoj @ Sonu and Amit) were alleged to have family interest in the property, they were acquitted by the Trial Court, and the appellant was said to be merely their friend, allegedly recruited to commit the murder.

The Court categorically found:
“The purported motive attributed to the appellant is founded merely on a speculative quid pro quo arrangement... and lacks support from any credible evidence.”

Additionally, neither the land judgment nor any documentary proof was brought on record to show that the deceased had succeeded in a land dispute, further weakening the motive angle.

“When Recovery Is From Open Access Areas, It Cannot Establish Exclusive Possession”: Court Cites Precedents

The Court distinguished the judgments relied upon by the State, such as Jeet Singh, Bharat Fakira Dhiwar, and Lochan Srivas, where recovery was supported by corroborative evidence like last-seen theory or exclusive knowledge of the accused. In contrast, here, no corroborative evidence existed, and the recovery was from a shared residential space.

Instead, the Court found stronger resonance with cases such as Manjunath v. State of Karnataka and Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P., where convictions based solely on recoveries from public or accessible places were overturned.

The Court reaffirmed:

“Sticks, chains, knives, or firearms—when recovered from open or shared spaces—must be treated with caution and cannot alone prove guilt unless other evidence corroborates their exclusive possession and use.”

“Standard of Proof in Criminal Trials Is Not a Form but a Foundation”: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Overreliance on FSL

Criticising the High Court’s approach of relying exclusively on the FSL report and recovery, the bench held that this constituted a misapplication of the criminal jurisprudence standard.

“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.”

The bench firmly reiterated that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain, and where eye-witnesses are hostile, recovery is questionable, and motive is unproven, conviction cannot be sustained.

Supreme Court Acquits the Appellant, Orders Immediate Release

In its final order, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the appellant’s release:

“The appellant is acquitted of all the charges and directed to be released forthwith from custody, unless required in any other offence.”

This judgment serves as a powerful reminder that the prosecution bears the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that forensic findings must stand on the firm pedestal of procedural integrity and independent corroboration.

Date of Decision: 14 November 2025