Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar upheld the life imprisonment conviction of several accused persons found guilty of murdering two victims following a dispute over crop damage caused by livestock. The court dismissed the appeal seeking acquittal on the ground that the prosecution's failure to recover the weapons used in the assault was fatal to its case, holding that credible and consistent testimony of eyewitnesses, when found reliable, is sufficient to sustain a conviction even in the absence of material recovery of the weapons used in the commission of the offence.

On the afternoon of August 15, 1985, two individuals were fatally assaulted by a group of persons armed with various weapons including a pistol, sword, axe, and other sharp implements. The incident was allegedly preceded by a dispute earlier that morning over livestock grazing on another's crops, following which threats were issued to the victims.

Also Read: Vilifying Any Community Through Speeches Or Art Constitutionally Impermissible; Public Figures In High Constitutional Office Equally Bound: Supreme Court

The prosecution examined eight witnesses, including four eyewitnesses, in support of its case, while the defence examined three witnesses. The accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder in furtherance of common intention.

The defence contended that the eyewitnesses were interested parties being relatives of the deceased, that weapons were never recovered, and that a plea of alibi had been duly established through defence witnesses.

The court addressed the reliability of eyewitness testimony, observing that the version of the four eyewitnesses was consistent and acknowledged the presence of each other at the spot of the incident. The court noted that the witnesses were cross-examined but nothing contrary to the prosecution case was elicited from them, and that minor inconsistencies therein do not weaken the prosecution case.

On the question of non-recovery of weapons, the court observed: "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."

Relying on Rakesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Om Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court recorded 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." It further stated that "mere non-recovery of pistol or cartridge does not detract the case of the prosecution where clinching and direct evidence is acceptable" and that "any omission on the part of the investigating officer cannot go against the prosecution's case. Story of the prosecution is to be examined dehors such omission by the investigating agency. Otherwise, it would shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice."

On the contention regarding examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court stated that such examination by itself cannot be the basis for upholding the contention of the appellants unless it is shown that prejudice was caused to them. The court observed that "there cannot be a generalised presumption of prejudice to an accused merely by reason of any omission or inadequate questions put to an accused thereunder" and that "it will be a question to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case including the nature of other evidence available, the kind of questions put to an accused, considered with anything further that the accused may state in his defence."

The court further stated that "while the rights of an accused to a fair trial are undoubtedly important, the rights of the victim and the society at large for correction of deviant behaviour cannot be made subservient to the rights of an accused by placing the latter at a pedestal higher than necessary for a fair trial."

On the standard required to demonstrate prejudice, the court recorded that "it would not be enough for the accused to show that he has not been questioned or examined on a particular circumstance but he must also show that such non-examination has actually and materially prejudiced him and has resulted in failure of justice."

Also Read: Right To Education | Three-Year Service Requirement No Bar For Government Employees Seeking Distance Mode Education : Punjab And Haryana High Court

The Court directed: "We, therefore, do not find any reason whatsoever to hold that the appellants have been wrongly convicted. The material on record clearly establishes their guilt and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 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, thus, fails and is accordingly dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellants: 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 the Respondent: Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR

Case Title: Ghanshyam Mandal and Ors. v. The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 194

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3105 of 2025

Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar