Recovery Of Weapon Used By Accused To Commit Offence Is Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that the recovery of the weapon used by the accused to commit the offence is not a sine qua non for conviction.

In this case, the accused were tried and convicted in a murder case. It was the prosecution case that owing to animosity between the friend of the accused, they had killed the deceased. The Madras High Court later acquitted the accused by allowing the appeal.

Before the Apex Court bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari, the State through Adv Joseph Aristotle S contended that the prosecution had fully proved the case against the accused by examining the relevant witnesses and that the eye witness to the occurrence had fully supported the case of the prosecution. Advocate Rao Ranjit, who appeared for accused, on the other hand, contended that that even the recovery of weapon cannot be said to have been proved by the prosecution and that eye-witness in this case cannot be said to be reliable and trustworthy witness.

The bench noted that the eye witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and that there can be a conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable. Regarding the contention raised by the accused about non-recovery of weapon, the court said:

"Similarly, assuming that the recovery of the weapon used is not established or proved also cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when there is a direct evidence of the eye witness. Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused. If there is a direct evidence in the form of eye witness, even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted. Similarly, even in the case of some contradictions with respect to timing of lodging the FIR/complaint cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when the prosecution case is based upon the deposition of eye witness."

Observing thus, the court allowed the appeal and restored the conviction.

Case details

State vs Laly @ Manikandan | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 851 | CrA 1750-1751 OF 2022 | 14 October 2022 | Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari

Headnotes

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 300, 302 - Appeal against Madras HC Judgment acquitting murder accused - Allowed - Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused. If there is a direct evidence in the form of eye witness, even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted. Similarly, even in the case of some contradictions with respect to timing of lodging the FIR/complaint cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when the prosecution case is based upon the deposition of eye witness - There can be a conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable. 

Click here to Read/Download Judgment