OCULAR EVIDENCE PREVAILS: SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS CONVICTION DESPITE NON-RECOVERY OF WEAPONS AND GENERAL SECTION 313 QUESTIONS

INTRODUCTION
In Ghanshyam Mandal & Ors. v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand), 2026 INSC 194, decided on 25 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India, in a Judgment authored by Justice Atul S. Chandurkar and concurred by Justice J.K. Maheshwari, dismissed the Criminal Appeal challenging conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court reaffirmed that reliable ocular evidence (eye witness) can sustain conviction even in the absence of recovery of weapons and that irregularities in examination under Section 313 CrPC do not vitiate a trial unless prejudice is demonstrated.

BRIEF FACTS
The case arose from an incident dated 15 August 1985 in which Bulaki Mandal and Hriday Mandal were brutally assaulted and killed. The Prosecution alleged that following an altercation earlier that day over grazing of crops, the Accused Persons attacked the victims with sharp-edged weapons.
The Prosecution examined eight witnesses, including four eye-witnesses. The Sessions Court convicted the Accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Jharkhand High Court upheld the conviction in appeal.
Aggrieved, the Appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Issues of Law
The principal grounds of challenge were:
1) Whether conviction could be sustained in the absence of recovery of the alleged weapons of assault.
2) Whether reliance on related eye-witnesses was justified.
3) Whether defective or general questioning under Section 313 CrPC caused prejudice warranting acquittal.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court found the testimony of the four eye-witnesses to be consistent, reliable and corroborative of each other. Their presence at the scene was natural and mere relationship with the deceased did not render their evidence unreliable. Minor inconsistencies were held insufficient to discredit otherwise trustworthy testimony.
On the issue of non-recovery of weapons, the Court reiterated settled law that recovery of the weapon is not a sine qua non for conviction. Where credible ocular evidence is supported by medical evidence, failure to recover the weapon does not weaken the Prosecution case.
Regarding Section 313 CrPC examination, the Court acknowledged that some questions were general and similar across Accused persons. However, relying on precedents, it held that unless actual prejudice is shown, such irregularity does not vitiate the trial. The incriminating circumstances were sufficiently put to the Accused, and no specific prejudice was demonstrated.
The Court emphasized that principles of fair trial must be balanced with societal interest in justice and technical omissions cannot override substantive evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the Prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through reliable ocular and medical evidence. Non-recovery of weapons and generalized Section 313 questioning were found insufficient to dislodge the conviction in the absence of demonstrated prejudice.
The Appeal was accordingly dismissed, reinforcing the principle that credible eye-witness testimony, if trustworthy, remains a strong foundation for sustaining criminal conviction.

SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “FALSE & MISLEADING ADVERTISING LAWS IN INDIA: Legal Analysis 2026 [Available in multiple languages]” can be viewed at the link below: