Supreme Court of India
Ghanshyam Mandal vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 25 February, 2026
Author: J.K. Maheshwari
Bench: J.K. Maheshwari
NON-REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 194 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3105 OF 2025
GHANSHYAM MANDAL AND ORS. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR RESPONDENT
(NOW JHARKHAND)
JUDGMENT
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated
09.05.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High
Court in Criminal Appeal No.533 of 1996. By that judgment, the
conviction of the appellants by the Sessions Court in Sessions
Case No.342 of 1986 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code1 has been upheld.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that as per the
informant-Chetan Mandal on 15.08.1985 at about 03.30 P.M,
while he was cutting grass at his courtyard, he heard shouts raised
by his brother Bulaki Mandal. On coming out of his house and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
approaching the passage outside, he saw Shiv Prasad Mandal and
NIDHI AHUJA
Date: 2026.02.25
18:00:15 IST
Reason:
1
For short, the Penal Code
Crl. Appeal. No.3105 of 2025 Page 1 of 13
Dindayal Mandal having garasas in their hands, Anirudh Mandalhaving a sword in his hand, who were all entering the courtyard of
his brother’s house. After raising slogans, they started assaulting
him. The informant further saw that his brother Bulaki and
nephew Hriday were being dragged out of the house and taken
near the house of Jahazi in the passage by the aforesaid persons.
He also saw Ghanshyam Mandal who was having a pistol and
Gupti in his hand; Bijay Mandal having a farsa alongwith Sanjay
Mandal having a bhala and Manoj Mandal having an axe in his
hand. With these weapons, the aforesaid persons assaulted the
informant’s brother and nephew, due to which both of them fell on
the ground. The assault continued till the victims died on the spot.
According to the informant, the occurrence was witnessed by
various villagers. After the assault, the assailants fled away. He
further stated that on the same day at about 06.00 A.M, two goats
of Shiv Parsad Mandal had grazed the crops of Bulaki Mandal, due
to which an altercation had taken place between them. At that
time, Shiv Prasad Mandal had given threats of dire consequences
to Bulaki Mandal. On the basis of such information, the case was
registered on 15.08.1985. On completion of the investigation, the
charge sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial.
Crl. Appeal. No.3105 of 2025 Page 2 of 13
3. The appellants denied the charges and were accordingly tried.
The prosecution examined eight witnesses in support of the
charges while the accused examined three witnesses in their
defence. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge of the
Sessions Court came to the conclusion that it was the accused who
were guilty of having committed the murder of Bulaki Mandal and
Hriday Mandal. On being found guilty, they were convicted and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Penal Code.
The appellants preferred an appeal challenging their
conviction. The High Court on a re-consideration of the entire
evidence held that the occurrence had been duly proved by the
four eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution. The motive
behind the attack had been established. The High Court, therefore,
upheld the conviction of the appellants and dismissed the appeal.
Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
4. Ms. Anjana Parkash, learned Senior Advocate for the
appellants while assailing the judgment of the High Court
submitted that both the Courts erred in believing the case of the
prosecution on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution. All the
witnesses examined were related to the deceased and hence were
interested in the conviction of the appellants. Though independent
Crl. Appeal. No.3105 of 2025 Page 3 of 13
witnesses were available, as was claimed by the prosecution, they
had not been examined. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 was full of
material contradictions and was, thus, inconsistent with the case
of the prosecution. Such evidence was not liable to be accepted. It
was further submitted that the weapons of assault had not been
recovered and this created a doubt about the case of the
prosecution. In absence of recovery of the weapons of assault, the
guilt of the appellants could not be established. Moreover, the copy
of the post-mortem report was sought to be relied upon without
producing the original certificate. It was further submitted that the
plea of alibi raised by the appellants had been duly established by
examining defence witnesses. The same was however brushed
away by the Courts without assigning any reason. It was then
submitted that while examining the appellants under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19722, similar questions of
general nature were put to all the accused without specifically
indicating any material circumstances appearing in the evidence
against them. Placing reliance upon the decisions in Raj Kumar @
Suman Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)3, Shambhu Choudhary Vs.
State of Bihar4, Asraf Ali Vs. State of Assam5 and Raj Kumar
2
For short, the Code
3
2023 INSC 520
4
SLP (CRL) NO.8688/2023 Order 23.04.2025
5
2008 INSC 840
Crl. Appeal. No.3105 of 2025 Page 4 of 13
Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan6, it was submitted that this had
caused prejudice to the appellants and they were liable to be
acquitted on this sole count. It was, thus, submitted that the
incident having occurred more than four decades ago and the
appellants being senior citizens were liable to be acquitted as the
prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The appeal was, thus, liable to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Vishnu Sharma, learned counsel for
the respondent supported the impugned judgment. According to
him, the testimony of all the four eye-witnesses was consistent and
reliable. Their presence at the site of the occurrence was natural
and merely on the ground that they were related to the deceased,
could not be made the reason to discard their evidence. Said
witnesses had been duly cross-examined and nothing adverse had
been found therein. The prosecution had established the motive
for the crime and in furtherance of their common intention, the
appellants had caused the death of the two victims. The post-
mortem report revealed various injuries caused by sharp weapons
and the cause of death had been established to be homicidal. As
regards the examination of the appellants under Section 313 of the
Code, it was submitted that the incriminating circumstances
6
2013 INSC 313
Crl. Appeal. No.3105 of 2025 Page 5 of 13
relating to the role of the appellants had been put to them. There
was an opportunity for the appellants to deny their joint
participation but they failed to do so. No prejudice was caused to
the appellants in that regard and, hence, they could not seek any
benefit in that regard. Reliance was placed on the decision in
Suresh Sahu and anr. Vs. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)7.
It was, thus, submitted that the Sessions Court and thereafter the
High Court had considered the entire evidence on record and had
found the involvement of the appellants to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. There was no reason, whatsoever, to interfere
with the said adjudication. The appeal was, therefore, liable to be
dismissed.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length
and with their assistance, we have also gone through the records
of the case. We have also perused the evidence on record. On giving
due consideration to the material on record, we find the version of
the four eye-witnesses to be consistent and also acknowledging the
presence of each other at the spot of the incident. The manner in
which the appellants assaulted Bulaki Mandal and Hriday Mandal
has been clearly indicated. These witnesses were cross-examined
but nothing contrary to the prosecution case has been elicited from
7
2025 INSC 1382
Crl. Appeal. No.3105 of 2025 Page 6 of 13
them. Minor inconsistencies therein does not weaken the
prosecution case. The Sessions Court and thereafter the High
Court have appreciated this ocular evidence and we find no reason
to take a different view of the matter.
7. It was urged on behalf of the appellants that in the absence
of recovery of any weapons of assault, the prosecution had failed
to establish the guilt of the appellants. 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. In this regard, we may refer to the decision in
Rakesh and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.8. In paragraph 11, it
has been observed as under:
“11. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that
as per the ballistic report the bullet found does not match with the
fire arm/gun recovered and therefore the use of gun as alleged is
doubtful and therefore benefit of doubt must be given to the
accused is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. At the
most, it can be said that the gun recovered by the police from the
accused may not have been used for killing and therefore the8
2021 INSC 321Crl. Appeal. No.3105 of 2025 Page 7 of 13
recovery of the actual weapon used for killing can be ignored and
it is to be treated as if there is no recovery at all. For convicting an
accused recovery of the weapon used in commission of offence is
not a sine qua non. PW1 & PW2, as observed hereinabove, are
reliable and trustworthy eyewitnesses to the incident and they
have specifically stated that A1-Rakesh fired from the gun and the
deceased sustained injury. The injury by the gun has been
established and proved from the medical evidence and the
deposition of Dr. Santosh Kumar, PW5. Injury no.1 is by gun shot.
Therefore, it is not possible to reject the credible ocular evidence
of PW1 & PW2 – eye witnesses who witnessed the shooting. It has
no bearing on credibility of deposition of PW1 & PW2 that A1 shot
deceased with a gun, particularly as it is corroborated by bullet in
the body and also stands corroborated by the testimony of PW2 &
PW5. Therefore, merely because the ballistic report shows that the
bullet recovered does not match with the gun recovered, it is not
possible to reject the credible and reliable deposition of PW1 &
PW2.”
8. We may also refer to a recent decision in Om Pal and Ors.
Vs. State of U.P. (now State of Uttarakhand)9. In paragraphs 49
and 50 thereof, it has been observed as under:
“49. Another contention raised by the appellants was that the
weapons used during the incident were never recovered from the
site. However, this Court has many a times reiterated that non-
recovery of the weapons cannot be considered fatal to the case of
the prosecution if there is consistent medical and ocular evidence.
This Court in the case State of Rajasthan vs. Arjun Singh & Ors.16
held as under:
“18. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the State that mere
nonrecovery of pistol or cartridge does not detract the
case of the prosecution where clinching and direct
evidence is acceptable. Likewise, absence of evidence
regarding recovery of used pellets, bloodstained clothes,
etc. cannot be taken or construed as no such
occurrence had taken place. As a matter of fact, we have
already pointed out that the gunshot injuries tallied
with medical evidence. It is also seen that Raghuraj
Singh and Himmat Raj Singh, who had died, received 8
and 7 gunshot wounds respectively while Raj Singh (PW
2) also received 8 gunshots scattered in front of left
9
2025 INSC 1262Crl. Appeal. No.3105 of 2025 Page 8 of 13
thigh. All these injuries have been noted by the doctor
(PW 1) in his reports, Exts. P-1 to P-4.”(Emphasis supplied)
50. Also in Nankaunoo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh17, this Court
held that where in light of unimpeachable oral evidence is
corroborated by the medical evidence, non-recovery of murder
weapon does not materially affect the case of the prosecution. 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.”From the aforesaid, it is clear 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.
9. Much emphasis was sought to be placed by the learned
Senior Advocate for the appellants as regards the examination of
the appellants under Section 313 of the Code. It was submitted
that all the appellants were asked similar questions without
specifically putting the material adverse to them. In that regard,
we have perused the examination of the appellants under Section
313 of the Code. We find that the incriminating circumstances
appearing against the appellants were put to them, though in
general terms. There is some similarity in the questions put to the
appellants. However, such examination by itself cannot be the
basis for upholding the contention of the appellants in that regard
Crl. Appeal. No.3105 of 2025 Page 9 of 13
unless it is shown that prejudice was caused to them on account
of such examination. In the facts of the present case, when the
entire material brought by the prosecution is considered, we find
that the evidence led by the eye-witnesses inspires confidence and
clearly establishes the guilt of the appellants. The nature of
prejudice caused to the appellants has not been indicated. In this
regard, we may refer to the decision in Fainul Khan Vs. State of
Jharkhand and anr.10. While dealing with a similar contention
raised therein, it was held as under:
“11. Section 313, Cr.P.C. incorporates the principle of audi
alteram partem. It provides an opportunity to the accused for his
defence by making him aware fully of the prosecution allegations
against him and to answer the same in support of his innocence.
The importance of the provision for a fair trial brooks no debate.
12. But equally 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.
Ultimately 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. In other words, there will have to
be a cumulative balancing of several factors. 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.
13. In the facts of the present case, considering the nature
of ocular evidence available of the injured witnesses P.Ws. 7
and 8 who have also been cross-examined by the appellants,
and the evidence of P.W. 11, we are of the considered opinion
that no prejudice has been caused to the appellants. A
specific question was put to the appellants that they
10
2019 INSC 1127
Crl. Appeal. No.3105 of 2025 Page 10 of 13
participated in an unlawful assembly with the common
object of murdering the deceased. Further, it was also put
to them that they had caused injuries to P.W. 7 and 8.
Merely because no questions were put to the appellants with
regard to the individual assault made by each of them, it
cannot be said in the facts of the case that any prejudice
has been caused to them. The questions asked being
similar we consider it proper to extract it with regard to
one of the appellants. The appellants did not offer any
explanation or desire to lead evidence except for stating
that they had been falsely implicated. Questions asked to
Fainul Khan are extracted hereunder:
“Question: As has been stated by the
prosecution witnesses, on 1st November, 1983
you along with other accused participated in an
unlawful assembly and took part in fighting. It
that true?
Answer: No. It is wrong.
Question: It has also been said that you
participated in the common object of the
unlawful assembly of murdering Rabbani Khan.
Is that true?
Answer: It is wrong.
Question: It has also been said the during the
said incident, you had also caused injuries upon
Nabiul hasan Khan, Eshanul Khan, Mir Tarabul
and Mir Sanif. Is this true?
Answer: No. It is wrong.
Question: Do you want to say anything in your
defence?
Answer: We have been falsely implicated.”
14. In Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar, 1995
Suppl (1) SCC 80, it was observed as follows:
“26…..It is no doubt true that the underlying
object behind Section 313 CrPC is to enable the
accused to explain any circumstance appearing
against him in the evidence and this object is
based on the maxim audi alteram partem which
is one of the principles of natural justice. It has
always been regarded unfair to rely upon any
incriminating circumstance without affording
the accused an opportunity of explaining the
said incriminating circumstance. The provisionsCrl. Appeal. No.3105 of 2025 Page 11 of 13
in Section 313, therefore, make it obligatory on
the court to question the accused on the
evidence and circumstance appearing against
him so as to apprise him the exact case which
he is required to meet. But 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. In other words in the event of any
inadvertent omission on the part of the court to
question the accused on any incriminating
circumstance appearing against him the same
cannot ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is
shown that some prejudice was caused to him.
In Bejoy Chand Patra v. State of W.B., AIR 1952
SC 105, this Court took the view that it is not
sufficient for the accused merely to show that he
has not been fully examined as required by
Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now
Section 313 in the new Code) but he must also
show that such examination has materially
prejudiced him. The same view was again
reiterated by this Court in Rama Shankar Singh
v. State of W.B.,1962 Suppl(1)SCR 49…..”
15. In Shobhit Chamar (supra), considering the nature of
ocular evidence notwithstanding the infirmities at the
stage of Section 313, Cr.P.C., it was observed as follows:
“18. ….In the case before us, the prosecution
case mainly rested upon the ocular evidence of
eyewitnesses. On conclusion of the prosecution
evidence, the trial court did put the necessary
questions relating to the evidence of eyewitnesses
to both the appellants and thereafter recorded
the answers given by them.
xxxx
24. We have perused all these reported decisions
relied upon by the learned advocates for the parties
and we see no hesitation in concluding that the
challenge to the conviction based on non-
compliance of Section 313 CrPC first time in this
appeal cannot be entertained unless the appellants
demonstrate that the prejudice has been caused to
them. In the present case as indicated earlier, the
prosecution strongly relied upon the ocular
Crl. Appeal. No.3105 of 2025 Page 12 of 13
evidence of the eyewitnesses and relevant
questions with reference to this evidence were put
to the appellants. If the evidence of these
witnesses is found acceptable, the conviction can
be sustained unless it is shown by the appellants
that a prejudice has been caused to them. No such
prejudice was demonstrated before us and,
therefore, we are unable to accept the contention
raised on behalf of the appellants.”
In the facts of the present case, we find that the ratio of
the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate for
the appellants cannot be applied to the case in hand.
10. 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.
…..…………………..J.
[J.K. MAHESHWARI]
…..………………………..J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
NEW DELHI,
FEBRUARY 25, 2026.
Crl. Appeal. No.3105 of 2025 Page 13 of 13
