Recovery Of Weapons Of Assault Not Sine Qua Non For Conviction: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Double Murder Case

The Apex Court was considering the appeals of the appellants against the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court convicting them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar stated, “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.”

Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash represented the Appellant, while Standing Counsel Vishnu Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

As per the informant, while he was cutting grass in his courtyard, he heard shouts raised by his brother. He saw Shiv Prasad Mandal, Dindayal Mandal and Anirudh Mandal, having a sword and other weapons and assaulting his brother and nephew. They were dragged out of the house by the aforesaid persons. He also saw Ghanshyam Mandal, Bijay Mandal, Sanjay Mandal and Manoj Mandal having an axe and other weapons. With these weapons, the aforesaid persons assaulted the informant’s brother and nephew, as a result of which both of them fell on the ground. The assault continued till the victims died on the spot. According to the informant, the occurrence was witnessed by various villagers. After the assault, the assailants fled.

The informant stated that due to some altercation which occurred in the morning, Shiv Prasad Mandal gave threats of dire consequences to his brother. On the basis of such information, the case was registered. The appellants denied the charges and were accordingly tried. The Sessions Court held that it was the accused who was guilty of having committed the murder of the victims. On being found guilty, they were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The appellants preferred an appeal challenging their conviction. The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellants and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the material on record, the Bench found the version of the four eye-witnesses to be consistent and also acknowledged the presence of each other at the spot of the incident. The manner in which the appellants assaulted the victims was also clearly indicated. “These witnesses were cross-examined but nothing contrary to the prosecution case has been elicited from them. Minor inconsistencies therein does not weaken the prosecution case. The Sessions Court and thereafter the High Court have appreciated this ocular evidence and we find no reason to take a different view of the matter”, it added.

One of the arguments raised by the appellant was that in the absence of recovery of any weapons of assault, the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellants. The Bench stated that 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.

On a perusal of the examination of the appellants under Section 313 of the Code, the Bench found that incriminating circumstances appearing against the appellants were put to them, though in general terms. There was some similarity in the questions put to the appellants. However, such examination by itself could not be the basis for upholding the contention of the appellants in that regard unless it was shown that prejudice was caused to them on account of such examination.

“In the facts of the present case, when the entire material brought by the prosecution is considered, we find that the evidence led by the eye-witnesses inspires confidence and clearly establishes the guilt of the appellants. The nature of prejudice caused to the appellants has not been indicated”, it held.

Thus, finding no reason to hold that the appellants had been wrongly convicted, the Bench dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Ghanshyam Mandal v. The State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 194)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash, AOR Abhay Kumar, Advocates Shagun Ruhil, Anuj Prakash, Pradum Kumar, Niraj Dubey, Rakesh Kumar, Karan Chopra, Shreenivash, Kusum Pandey, Firoz Gandhi

Respondent: Standing Counsel Vishnu Sharma, AOR Madhusmita Bora, Advocates Pawan Kishore Singh, Dipankar Singh, Anupama Sharma

Click here to read/download Judgment