Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Holds Weapon Recovery Not Essential If Eye-Witness Evidence Is Reliable

The Supreme Court of India has clarified that recovery of the weapon used in an assault is not essential to convict an accused. What matters is the overall evidence on record.

Court said that even if the weapon is not recovered, the prosecution’s case does not weaken as long as other evidence is reliable.

A Bench of Justice J K Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar upheld the conviction of Ghanshyam Mandal and others in a case involving the murder of Bulaki Mandal and his nephew Hriday Mandal. The incident took place on August 15, 1985, following a dispute over goats grazing in fields.

The trial court had convicted the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Their appeals were later dismissed by the Jharkhand High Court on May 9, 2019.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that all prosecution witnesses were related to the deceased and therefore interested in securing a conviction. They also pointed out that the weapons of assault were never recovered, which, according to them, created doubt in the prosecution’s case.

It was further argued that their plea of alibi had been rejected without proper reasoning. The appellants also contended that during their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 corresponding to Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), they were asked general questions instead of being confronted with specific incriminating circumstances.

They also submitted that since the incident occurred over four decades ago and they are now senior citizens, they should be acquitted as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The state, however, argued that the prosecution had clearly established the motive and that the accused acted with a common intention to commit the murders. It relied on the consistent and reliable testimony of four eye-witnesses. The state also said that both the trial court and the high court had already examined the evidence and found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court found that the four eye-witnesses gave consistent accounts and confirmed each other’s presence at the scene. It noted that minor inconsistencies in their statements did not weaken the prosecution’s case, and saw no reason to take a different view from the courts below.

On the issue of non-recovery of weapons, Court acknowledged that the investigating officer had not produced any material showing recovery of the weapons described by the eye-witnesses. However, it held that this alone could not benefit the accused since the eye-witness accounts of the assault were found reliable. Court reiterated that recovery of the weapon is not a necessary condition for conviction if other evidence is credible.

Relying on earlier judgments such as Rakesh and Anr Vs State of UP And Anr (2021) and Om Pal and Ors Vs State of UP (now State of Uttarakhand) (2025), the Bench said that absence of weapon recovery does not weaken the prosecution’s case when there is reliable evidence on record.

On the issue of examination under Section 313 CrPC, Court observed that although similar and general questions were put to the accused, that by itself would not invalidate the process unless it caused prejudice to them. In this case, no such prejudice was shown.

Court ultimately held that the evidence on record, particularly the eye-witness testimony, clearly established the guilt of the accused. It found no reason to interfere with their conviction and dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgments of the trial court and the high court.

Case Title: Ghanshyam Mandal And Ors Vs The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

Bench: Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar

Date of Judgment: February 25, 2026