Recovery of Weapon Is Not Sine Qua Non for Conviction When Eye-Witnesses Inspire Confidence: Supreme Court

“Minor Inconsistencies Cannot Eclipse Consistent Ocular Evidence”, In a significant reaffirmation of principles governing appreciation of evidence in murder trials, the Supreme Court upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Sessions Court and the Jharkhand High Court, holding that the prosecution had proved the double homicide beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that non-recovery of weapons and alleged defects in examination under Section 313 CrPC did not cause prejudice sufficient to vitiate the trial.

Brutal Daylight Double Murder Over Crop Dispute

The prosecution case arose out of an incident dated 15 August 1985. The informant, Chetan Mandal, stated that after a morning altercation over goats grazing crops, threats were issued by one of the accused. Later that afternoon, several accused persons, armed with deadly weapons including garasas, sword, farsa, bhala, axe, pistol and gupti, allegedly entered the courtyard of Bulaki Mandal and dragged him and Hriday Mandal outside.

According to the eye-witnesses, the accused assaulted both victims repeatedly until they fell to the ground and died on the spot. The assailants then fled.

After investigation, charges were framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The Sessions Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court affirmed the conviction in 2019. The matter reached the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

“Presence of Related Witnesses Is Natural”: Credibility of Eye-Witnesses Upheld

The appellants argued that all four eye-witnesses were related to the deceased and hence interested witnesses whose testimony should be discarded. It was further argued that independent villagers were not examined.

Rejecting this contention, the Supreme Court observed:

“On giving due consideration to the material on record, we find the version of the four eye-witnesses to be consistent and also acknowledging the presence of each other at the spot of the incident.”

The Court emphasized that mere relationship with the deceased does not render testimony unreliable if it is otherwise trustworthy. The witnesses had been cross-examined and:

“Nothing contrary to the prosecution case has been elicited from them. Minor inconsistencies therein does not weaken the prosecution case.”

The Bench held that both the Sessions Court and the High Court had properly appreciated the ocular evidence and found no reason to take a different view.

“Non-Recovery of Weapons Cannot Override Reliable Ocular Evidence”

A major plank of the defence was that the Investigating Officer failed to recover the weapons allegedly used in the assault, creating doubt about the prosecution case.

The Supreme Court categorically rejected this argument:

“It may be observed that recovery of the weapons of assault is not the sine qua non for convicting an accused as the entire evidence on record is required to be taken into consideration.”

Relying on precedents including Rakesh v. State of U.P. and Om Pal v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that credible ocular evidence corroborated by medical findings is sufficient to sustain conviction even in absence of weapon recovery.

The Bench noted that the post-mortem report revealed injuries caused by sharp weapons and the cause of death was homicidal. The failure of the investigating agency to recover weapons could not demolish otherwise reliable testimony.

“No Generalised Presumption of Prejudice”: Section 313 CrPC Objection Rejected

The appellants strongly contended that their examination under Section 313 CrPC was defective, as similar and general questions were put to all accused without specifying individual roles. It was argued that such examination caused prejudice and vitiated the trial.

After examining the record, the Court observed:

“We find that the incriminating circumstances appearing against the appellants were put to them, though in general terms.”

While acknowledging some similarity in the questions, the Court held that such examination does not automatically invalidate the trial.

“Such examination by itself cannot be the basis for upholding the contention of the appellants in that regard unless it is shown that prejudice was caused to them.”

Quoting from Fainul Khan v. State of Jharkhand, the Court reiterated:

“There cannot be a generalised presumption of prejudice to an accused merely by reason of any omission or inadequate questions put to an accused.”

The appellants failed to demonstrate how the alleged defect resulted in material prejudice or failure of justice. The Court balanced the rights of the accused with societal interest in criminal justice, observing that fair trial principles cannot be stretched to create technical acquittals where guilt stands established.

Plea of Alibi Not Substantiated

Though defence witnesses were examined to establish alibi, the Supreme Court found no merit in the plea. The prosecution evidence was found cogent and reliable, and the concurrent appreciation of evidence by two courts did not warrant interference.

“No Reason Whatsoever to Interfere”: Concurrent Findings Affirmed

Concluding the matter, the Bench held:

“The material on record clearly establishes their guilt and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.”

It further observed:

“We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of their conviction as passed by the Sessions Court and maintained by the High Court.”

The Criminal Appeal was dismissed and the life sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was affirmed.

The judgment reinforces three critical principles of criminal jurisprudence. First, testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded merely on account of relationship if found credible. Second, non-recovery of weapon is not fatal when ocular and medical evidence conclusively establish assault. Third, alleged irregularities in Section 313 CrPC examination do not vitiate trial unless real prejudice is demonstrated.

Even after four decades of the incident, the Supreme Court declined to dilute the conviction, holding that justice must rest on the strength of reliable evidence, not procedural technicalities.

Date of Decision: 25 February 2026