The Supreme Court of India has held that the non-recovery of weapons used in the commission of an offense does not weaken the prosecution’s case if the testimony of eyewitnesses is found to be consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical evidence.
A Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar delivered this ruling while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by Ghanshyam Mandal and others against a Jharkhand High Court judgment that upheld their conviction for double murder.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to August 15, 1985. According to the informant, Chetan Mandal, the incident was preceded by an altercation earlier that morning when goats belonging to one of the accused, Shiv Prasad Mandal, grazed the crops of the deceased, Bulaki Mandal. Shiv Prasad Mandal had allegedly threatened Bulaki with dire consequences at that time.
At approximately 03:30 P.M. that day, a group of men armed with various weapons—including garasas (poleaxes), a sword, a pistol, a gupti (concealed sword), a farsa (battle-axe), a bhala (spear), and an axe—entered Bulaki Mandal’s courtyard. They dragged Bulaki and his nephew, Hriday Mandal, into a passage and assaulted them until they died on the spot.
The Sessions Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This conviction was subsequently upheld by the Jharkhand High Court in May 2019.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellants, represented by Senior Advocate Ms. Anjana Parkash, raised several contentions:
- Interested Witnesses: All prosecution witnesses were relatives of the deceased and thus “interested” in the conviction.
- Non-Examination of Independent Witnesses: Despite claims that villagers witnessed the act, no independent witnesses were examined.
- Non-Recovery of Weapons: The failure of the Investigating Officer to recover the weapons of assault created reasonable doubt.
- Section 313 CrPC Violations: The trial court put similar, general questions to all accused without specifically indicating material circumstances, causing prejudice.
- Plea of Alibi: The defense witnesses established an alibi which the lower courts allegedly brushed aside.
Conversely, the State’s counsel, Mr. Vishnu Sharma, argued that the four eyewitnesses provided consistent and reliable accounts. He contended that the medical evidence (post-mortem report) corroborated the ocular testimony, establishing the cause of death as homicidal via sharp weapons.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court, after perusing the evidence, found the eyewitness versions to be consistent and reliable. The Court addressed the legal issue of missing weapons, stating:
“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 Bench cited the decision in Rakesh and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr. (2021) and the recent decision in Om Pal and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. (2025), which reiterated that:
“Non-recovery of the weapons cannot be considered fatal to the case of the prosecution if there is consistent medical and ocular evidence.”
Regarding the examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Court observed that while the questions were general, the appellants failed to demonstrate how this caused them “prejudice.” Referring to Fainul Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand (2019), the Court noted:
“Ultimately it will be a question to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case including the nature of other evidence available… there will have to be a cumulative balancing of several factors.”
The Court found that since the incriminating circumstances—such as participation in an unlawful assembly with the intent to murder—were put to the accused, the similarity in questioning did not vitiate the trial.
Decision
The Court concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It noted that the ocular evidence inspired confidence and the medical reports tallied with the eyewitness accounts of the assault.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the orders of the Sessions Court and the High Court. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal was dismissed.
- Case Title: Ghanshyam Mandal and Ors. v. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3105 of 2025
