Absence of Weapon Recovery Does Not Break Chain of Guilt Under Section 149 IPC: Supreme Court Says Conviction Can Rest on Ocular and Medical Evidence Alone

In a significant reaffirmation of principles governing proof of criminal liability in group offences, the Supreme Court held that non-recovery of weapons from an accused does not negate his liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, provided credible ocular and medical evidence establishes his participation in the unlawful assembly and knowledge of the common object.

Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi rejected the argument that the absence of weapon recovery from accused no. 3 and 4 (appellants) should entitle them to acquittal. The Court ruled that the conviction can be sustained even without the recovery of physical weapons, when other evidence on record conclusively points to their role in the execution of a planned murderous assault.

“The cumulative evidence clearly shows that the appellants were not passive spectators but active participants and facilitators in a deliberate and planned assault... Their conduct and presence at the scene, in concert with the armed co-accused persons, establish their common intention and vicarious liability,” the Court observed.

“Recovery Is Only Corroborative—Not Essential When Direct Testimony Is Strong and Supported by Medical Evidence”

The appellants had challenged their conviction under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, contending that no knives or blood-stained clothes were recovered from them, and that their presence alone was insufficient for conviction. The Supreme Court decisively rejected this line of defence.

The Bench held that the failure to recover a weapon from a particular accused does not vitiate the prosecution case, when credible, consistent, and corroborated eyewitness accounts establish the role of the accused in the assault.

“It is not the law that conviction in every case of group assault must rest on recovery of the weapon. In cases involving a common object, where multiple persons coordinate an attack, the recovery of individual weapons plays a lesser role compared to direct and corroborated evidence of participation,” the Court observed.

The Court referred to the consistent testimonies of PW-1, PW-7, and PW-9, all of whom identified the accused, described the method of the assault, and assigned specific roles to each. These depositions were found to be in perfect harmony with the medical evidence, which confirmed that the injuries were inflicted using sharp weapons like knives and sattur, consistent with the nature of the wounds found on the deceased and the injured witnesses.

“Evidence Beyond Recovery: Participation, Facilitation, and Knowledge Create Liability”

The appellants argued that since there was no direct evidence of assault or possession of weapons, the charge under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC could not stand. The Court flatly rejected this contention.

“Section 149 IPC embodies the doctrine of constructive liability. It is not necessary that each accused must inflict injuries or be found in possession of the murder weapon. What is crucial is the shared common object and conscious facilitation of the act,” the judgment stated.

The Court noted that accused no. 3 had removed the keys from the victims' vehicle, punched one of the witnesses, and held the deceased while others stabbed him, as per the testimony of PW-1. Accused no. 4 was seen arriving on a motorcycle with armed assailants and preventing victims from escaping. These acts, the Court ruled, were not peripheral but central to the execution of the murder, and the non-recovery of knives from their possession was immaterial in light of the overwhelming other evidence.

“Conviction Cannot Be Defeated by Procedural Loopholes When Substantive Evidence Is Clear”

The Court also rejected the defence's argument regarding irregularities in search and seizure proceedings, and the alleged delay in identification parades, stating that these were not sufficient to overturn a conviction grounded in substantive, corroborated facts.

Citing the classic rule laid down in Masalti v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated:

“In cases of mob violence or group crime, it is often not feasible to attribute specific roles with mathematical precision. The test is whether the prosecution has proved the presence of the accused and their knowing participation in furtherance of the common object.”

In the present case, the Court held that the prosecution had done so.

Recovery Is Not the Linchpin—Participation Is

Dismissing the appeals, the Court upheld the High Court’s reversal of acquittal and conviction under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC, concluding that “the law does not insist on weapon recovery as a condition precedent to conviction”, when the chain of circumstantial and direct evidence is complete.

This judgment sends a clear message: in cases involving planned group assaults, it is not the absence of a knife in hand, but the presence in purpose and conduct, that determines criminal liability.

Date of Decision: 29 October 2025