Missing Murder Weapon Not Fatal When Eyewitnesses Are Reliable - Brother Stabs Brother: Tripura High Court

"Recovery Of The Weapon Of Offence Is Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction" Tripura High Court affirming a life sentence for murder, delivering important rulings on the evidentiary value of eyewitness testimony, the legal status of cryptic telephonic police entries, and the impact of uninvestigated weapons on criminal convictions.

A Division Bench of Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha, deciding the appeal on March 25, 2026, dismissed the challenge to conviction under Section 302 IPC and held that when reliable eyewitnesses directly testify to the commission of murder, the absence of the recovered weapon is no ground for acquittal.

The principal questions before the Court were: whether a cryptic telephonic entry in the General Diary (GDE No. 29) constituted the "first FIR," thereby rendering the subsequent written complaint by PW-1 a second FIR hit by Section 162 CrPC; whether unexplained delay in examination of witnesses by the Investigating Officer vitiated the prosecution case; whether non-recovery of the knife used in the assault was fatal to the prosecution; and whether the eyewitness testimony was sufficiently reliable and corroborated to sustain conviction under Section 302 IPC.

On Multiple FIRs and Cryptic Telephonic Information

The defence's primary legal attack was that the telephonic information received by the Police Station and entered in GDE No. 29 at 6:00 p.m. on October 1, 2021, disclosing a stab injury resulting in death, was itself the "first FIR," and the subsequent written complaint Exhibit P-1 lodged by PW-1 was therefore a second FIR in respect of the same incident, hit by the bar under Section 162 CrPC as settled in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181.

The Court rejected this contention squarely. It noted that the Investigating Officer PW-14 had himself admitted that after receiving the telephonic information in GDE No. 29, he proceeded to the spot and only after personally observing the commission of a cognizable offence did he commence investigation at 6:20 p.m. on the direction of the Officer-in-Charge. The written FIR in the prescribed format, Exhibit P-1, was received at the Police Station at 10:14 p.m. The Court held: "A cryptic telephonic information cannot be treated as an FIR." Since the GDE entry did not by itself constitute an FIR disclosing a cognizable offence in the manner required by law, the written complaint Exhibit P-1 was validly treated as the first FIR. "There is nothing on record that more than one FIR was lodged in connection with the murder of the deceased Titu Miah Khadim."

On Delay in Examination of Witnesses

The defence argued that the Investigating Officer had failed to examine PW-2, who was present at the place of occurrence at 6:20 p.m. itself, without explanation — thus providing scope for manipulation of evidence and raising a serious doubt on the fairness of the investigation.

The Court acknowledged the general principle that delay in examination of witnesses by the IO can raise questions about investigative fairness, but refused to apply it mechanically. It held: "Delay in examination of witnesses by the investigating officer can raise questions about the fairness of the investigation, but not every delay necessarily vitiates the entire investigation unless there is prejudice to the accused or the integrity of the investigation is compromised." The Court found no actual prejudice established by the defence.

On PW-1's failure to disclose information to the IO immediately upon receiving it, the Court took a conspicuously human view: "It is quite illogical to expect from a person like PW-1 to chronologically disclose the information to police immediately on receipt of information because a son on hearing the information about the killing of his father might not be in a stable position to decide the course of action to be adopted immediately." The Court found that PW-1 was "mentally devastated" on the evening of October 1, 2021, and his silence that evening could not be held against the prosecution.

On Non-Recovery of the Weapon

The defence argued that the knife used in the assault was never recovered, and that this was fatal to the prosecution case since the entire chain of physical evidence was incomplete. The Court firmly rejected this argument, relying on a consistent line of Supreme Court authority.

Citing Goutam Joardar v. State of West Bengal, (2022) 17 SC 549, the Court reiterated: "Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused. If there is direct evidence in the form of eyewitnesses, even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted." The Court further drew on the Supreme Court's recent 2026 ruling in Ghanshyam Mandal v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand), (2026) SCC OnLine SC 307, which held that "non-recovery of the weapons of assault would not weaken the case of the prosecution in the presence of other evidence on record that is found reliable." The Court held that when eyewitnesses are found credible and their accounts are corroborated by medical evidence, the absence of the weapon cannot be a ground for acquittal.

On the Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony

The Court found the eyewitness chain robust and unshaken. PW-2 Soharab Ali Khadim, the elder brother who had convened the very meeting at which the murder occurred, gave a direct and detailed eyewitness account of the accused drawing the knife and attacking the deceased, and further stated that after the assault the accused walked to the courtyard, cleaned the blood-stained knife with a gamcha, and remarked that he wondered why the deceased was still alive. Crucially, the defence did not dispute PW-2's presence at the place of occurrence.

PW-4 Nurul Islam Khadim corroborated PW-2 significantly: he testified that though he had briefly stepped out of the meeting, he returned within a minute after hearing an uproar and found the deceased lying with bleeding injuries — and the accused was cleaning a blood-stained knife with a gamcha. PW-8 Partha Karmakar, who had attended the meeting on PW-2's request, also witnessed the attack.

The defence sought to discredit these witnesses on account of minor inconsistencies in their testimony. The Court repelled this argument decisively, holding that "inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses do not automatically render the evidence inadmissible or unreliable." Drawing on Baban Shankar Daphal v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 137, the Court held that "minor inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts do not render their testimony unreliable, especially when they pertain to incidents involving sudden and brutal violence."

The defence also questioned the presence of PW-8, suggesting he had no business at a family mediation meeting of the Muslim Khadim community. The Court noted that PW-8's presence was confirmed by PW-2 and that PW-8 himself explained he had been personally requested to attend by PW-2 owing to his good relations with the family. The Court found no basis to disbelieve him.

On the Inquest Report Discrepancy

The defence pointed out a discrepancy between the inquest report, which mentioned three injuries on the neck, left side of chest and right side of waist, and the post-mortem report, which recorded six injuries. The Court found this did not undermine the prosecution case, noting that the defence had itself not disputed the evidence of the medical witnesses — PW-5, PW-6 and PW-11 — and had declined to cross-examine them. The post-mortem conclusively established that death was caused by multiple homicidal injuries from a sharp force instrument.

The Court found no reason to interfere with the findings of the Sessions Court and affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. The appeal was dismissed, pending miscellaneous applications were closed, and the lower court records were directed to be sent down forthwith. The fine of Rs. 20,000 was directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased Titu Miah Khadim.

Date of Decision: March 25, 2026