Non-Recovery Of Murder Weapon Not Fatal To Prosecution's Case When Other Credible Evidence Exists : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has upheld a murder conviction, observing that the existence of credible and consistent ocular evidence is sufficient for conviction, despite failure to produce the weapon used in the crime.

"…the absence of 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.”, observed a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar, while dismissing a convict's appeal, who sought acquittal contenting prosecution's case to be fatal on account of failure to produce the murder weapon.

The prosecution case arose from a daylight attack in which the deceased persons were allegedly assaulted with sharp-edged weapons and firearms by multiple accused, following an earlier altercation over the grazing of crops. Four eyewitnesses, all related to the deceased, deposed that the accused dragged the victims out of their house and assaulted them repeatedly until they died on the spot.

The Sessions Court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, a finding later affirmed by the Jharkhand High Court. Challenging these concurrent findings, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, amongst other grounds, the Appellants contended that none of the alleged weapons of assault, such as swords, axes, garasas, or firearms, were recovered during the investigation, creating serious doubt about the prosecution's version. It was argued that in the absence of recovery, the conviction could not be sustained.

Rejecting this argument, the judgment authored by Justice Chandurkar held that recovery of the weapon of offence is not a sine qua non for conviction. It added that where eyewitness testimony is consistent, trustworthy, and corroborated by medical evidence, non-recovery of weapons cannot be treated as fatal.

Relying on Rakesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) and Om Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (now Uttarakhand), the Court emphasized that lapses or omissions by the investigating agency, such as failure to recover weapons, cannot automatically enure to the benefit of the accused.

“It is true that the Investigating Officer failed to bring on record any material indicating recovery of the weapons of assault that were described by the eye-witnesses. However, this aspect cannot enable the appellants to seek any benefit in the light of the fact that the version of the eye-witnesses as regards the assault has been found to be reliable. 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.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction.

Headnote

Criminal Law – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 r/w Section 34 – Conviction for Murder – Non-recovery of weapons of assault – Effect of – Held, recovery of the weapons of assault is not a sine qua non for convicting an accused if the evidence on record, particularly reliable ocular testimony, establishes the guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Even if the Investigating Officer fails to bring on record the weapons described by eye-witnesses, this omission cannot benefit the accused when the version of eye-witnesses is found to be consistent, reliable, and corroborated by medical evidence. [Para 7, 8]

Criminal Procedure – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – Examination of the Accused – Failure to put specific material circumstances – Prejudice to the Accused – The underlying object of Section 313 is based on the principle of audi alteram partem to enable the accused to explain incriminating circumstances - a generalized presumption of prejudice cannot be made merely because of inadequate or general questions - To vitiate a trial, the accused must demonstrate that the non-examination on a particular circumstance actually and materially prejudiced them, resulting in a failure of justice - In the present case, while questions were general, the incriminating circumstances were put to the appellants, and no specific prejudice was shown - Held, the testimony of eye-witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are related to the deceased. If their presence at the site is natural and their testimony remains consistent under cross-examination, minor inconsistencies do not weaken the prosecution's. [Relied on Rakesh and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2021 INSC 321; Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar (1995 Suppl (1) SCC 80); Om Pal and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. (now State of Uttarakhand) (2025 INSC 1262); Para 5-9]

Cause Title: GHANSHYAM MANDAL AND ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR RESPONDENT (NOW JHARKHAND)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 201

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Anjana Prakash, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, AOR Mr. Anuj Prakash, Adv. Mr. Shagun Ruhil, Adv. Mr. Pradum Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shreenivash, Adv. Mr. Karan Chopra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR