Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court

"For convicting an accused recovery of the weapon used in commission of offence is not a sine qua non," Allahabad High Court, in a significant judgment, held that the non-recovery of a murder weapon by the investigating agency does not affect the veracity of the prosecution case if the ocular testimony is found reliable and is fully corroborated by medical evidence.

A division bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi observed that the story of the prosecution must be examined dehors any omissions by the investigating agency, as such failures should not shake the confidence of the public in the administration of justice.

The matter arose from a 1982 incident where the informant, along with the deceased Satish Kumar and another witness, were intercepted by seven accused persons while returning from Haridwar after purchasing medicines. The accused, armed with guptis (sword-sticks), knives, a bicycle chain, and a country-made pistol, assaulted the deceased and the witnesses. Satish Kumar succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital. In 1983, the Trial Court convicted all the accused for various offences including murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The appellants subsequently challenged this conviction before the High Court.

The primary question before the Court was whether a conviction can be sustained in the absence of the recovery of the murder weapons. The Court was also called upon to determine the evidentiary value of "interested" or "inimical" witnesses and whether the ocular testimony of eye-witnesses was sufficiently corroborated by the medical reports and secondary evidence.

Non-Recovery Of Murder Weapon Is Not Fatal To Prosecution Case

The Court addressed the primary contention of the appellants regarding the failure of the Investigating Officer to recover the knives and guptis used in the crime. Relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Nankaunoo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016), the Court noted that recovery of the weapon is not a sine qua non for proving the charge of murder.

The bench emphasized that if the prosecution story finds support from unimpeachable oral evidence which is further strengthened by medical reports, any omission on the part of the investigating officer cannot go against the prosecution. The Court held that the veracity of the eye-witnesses cannot be doubted merely because the police failed to recover the physical evidence of the weapons.

Ocular Testimony Corroborated By Medical Evidence

The Court found that the injuries noted in the post-mortem report of the deceased—totaling fifteen injuries, including ten incised wounds and three stab wounds—perfectly matched the weapons described by the eye-witnesses. The medical officer (PW-3) had specifically stated that such injuries could be caused by guptis and knives.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the injuries found on the body of the eye-witness Shri Ram (PW-2) were consistent with being hit by a bicycle chain, as alleged in the FIR. The bench observed that the ocular testimony and medical evidence corroborated and supported each other, leaving no room for doubt regarding the manner of the assault.

Evidence Of Inimical Witnesses Requires Cautious Scrutiny, Not Outright Rejection

The appellants had argued that the witnesses were highly "interested" due to long-standing enmity between the parties. However, the Court, citing Suresh Sitaram Surve vs. State of Maharashtra (2002), observed that enmity is a double-edged weapon that can provide a motive for the crime just as easily as it can provide a motive for false implication.

The bench held that the testimony of an inimical witness cannot be discarded in toto. Instead, the Court must subject such evidence to careful and cautious scrutiny. In this case, since the witnesses stated the prosecution story without any concoction, improvement, or artificiality, their testimony was deemed trustworthy despite the prior legal disputes between the parties.

Presence Of Informant Proved Through Documentary Evidence

The Court highlighted that the presence of the informant (PW-1) at the scene was naturally established. The informant claimed he had gone to Haridwar to buy medicines for his father just before the attack. This was corroborated by the testimony of a salesman from a medical store (PW-5) and the production of the original cash memo and register entries.

The bench noted that this documentary evidence proved that the informant was indeed returning from the medical store at the time of the incident. This established him as a "natural witness" whose presence at the place of occurrence could not be doubted.

The High Court concluded that the Trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence in a legal and proper perspective. Finding no infirmity or perversity in the 1983 judgment, the Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the conviction and sentences of the surviving appellants. Since the appellants were already in jail following the issuance of non-bailable warrants during the pendency of the appeal, the Court directed them to serve out their remaining sentences.

Date of Decision: June 08, 2026