Absence of murder weapon recovery is not fatal if ocular and medical evidence is reliable.

On August 15, 1985, the appellants, armed with various weapons including pistols, swords, and axes, entered the courtyard of Bulaki Mandal.

Following a prior dispute over cattle grazing, they dragged Bulaki and his nephew Hriday into a passage and assaulted them until both died on the spot.

The incident was witnessed by four relatives of the deceased (PW-1 to PW-4).

The Sessions Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

The High Court of Jharkhand upheld the conviction on May 9, 2019.

The appellants challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court, citing the absence of weapon recovery, reliance on "interested" witnesses, and improper examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.

Whether the non-recovery of the weapons of assault is fatal to the prosecution’s case when ocular evidence is deemed reliable.

Whether the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC was defective to the extent of causing material prejudice or vitiating the trial.

Whether the testimony of related witnesses can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased.

The Court applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 34 (Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

It relied on *Rakesh v. State of U.P.* and *Om Pal v. State of U.P.*, establishing that recovery of the murder weapon is not a sine qua non for conviction if ocular evidence is consistent and corroborated by medical reports.

Regarding Section 313 of the CrPC, the Court applied the principles from *Fainul Khan v. State of Jharkhand* and *Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar*, which hold that inadequate questioning does not vitiate a trial unless the accused demonstrates "material prejudice" resulting in a failure of justice.

The Court found the testimony of the four eye-witnesses consistent, noting they corroborated each other’s presence and the specific roles of the appellants.

Brushing aside the argument on non-recovery of weapons, the Court reasoned that credible ocular evidence, supported by a post-mortem report confirming homicidal death by sharp weapons, outweighs the investigative lapse of failing to recover the arms.

Regarding the Section 313 CrPC examination, the Court observed that while the questions were general and similar across all accused, the "incriminating circumstances" were essentially put to them.

The appellants failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice or show how the allegedly defective examination hampered their ability to defend themselves.

Finally, the plea of alibi was rejected as the lower courts had already found the eye-witnesses' versions to be unimpeachable.

The Court affirmed that procedural irregularities in Section 313 examinations and the absence of weapon recovery do not warrant acquittal in the face of reliable eye-witness testimony.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and life imprisonment sentences were upheld.