Mere recovery of a weapon, without corroborative evidence, cannot sustain a murder conviction.

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega, under Section 302 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, with a concurrent sentence for the statutory offence

The prosecution case arose after the deceased, the appellant’s mother, was found dead with her neck nearly severed; the person who first saw her body, Sumti Devi, was not examined at trial

The prosecution relied principally on the appellant’s statement leading to the recovery of an axe and knife from Baliram Manjhi’s house, and on the seizure of the appellant’s clothes

The High Court considered the appellant’s appeal against conviction and sentence

1. Whether the recovery of the alleged weapons, following the appellant’s statement, was sufficiently proved and corroborated to sustain his conviction for murder

2. Whether the forensic evidence linking the weapons or the appellant’s clothing to the deceased established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt

The appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act

The Court applied the principle that mere recovery of a weapon, without other corroborating evidence, is insufficient to sustain a murder conviction, relying on Govind v. State of Haryana, reported as SCC OnLine SC 2456

The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt

The Court found that the appellant’s clothes tested negative for blood, while the weapons and other seized materials bore human blood of Group A; however, no DNA analysis established that the blood on the weapons matched the deceased’s blood

The alleged recovery from Baliram Manjhi’s house was not adequately proved: Baliram was not examined, and the seizure-list witness who testified was declared hostile and denied that the weapons were recovered in her presence

With the first person to discover the body also not examined, the Court concluded that the recovery evidence lacked sufficient corroboration and could not prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt

It set aside the conviction and sentence and directed the appellant’s release from custody, unless required in another case