Supreme Court Holds Non-Recovery of Weapon and General Section 313 CrPC Questions Do Not Vitiate Murder Conviction Absent Prejudice

Case Name: Ghanshyam Mandal and Ors. v. The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Citation: 2026 INSC 194; Criminal Appeal No. 3105 of 2025
Date of Judgment/Order: 25 February 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Held: The Supreme Court held that non-recovery of the weapon of assault is not fatal to the prosecution case where reliable and consistent ocular evidence is corroborated by medical evidence, and that general or similar questions put to accused under Section 313 CrPC do not vitiate the trial unless specific and demonstrable prejudice is shown; in absence of such prejudice and in light of credible eyewitness testimony establishing common intention under Section 34 IPC, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld.

Summary: The case arose from a 1985 incident in which the appellants were alleged to have assaulted and murdered two persons following a prior altercation; the Sessions Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, which was affirmed by the High Court; before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that the prosecution witnesses were interested and related, that independent witnesses were not examined, that the weapons were not recovered, that the post-mortem report was improperly relied upon, that the plea of alibi was wrongly rejected, and that the examination under Section 313 CrPC was defective as similar general questions were put to all accused without specifying individual roles; the Court, after examining the record, found the testimony of four eyewitnesses to be consistent, natural and corroborated by medical evidence proving homicidal death; it reiterated that recovery of the weapon is not a sine qua non for conviction where credible ocular evidence exists; on the issue of Section 313 CrPC, the Court held that though questions were general in nature, incriminating circumstances had been put to the accused and no material prejudice was demonstrated; mere similarity of questions or omission to frame them in individualized detail would not ipso facto vitiate the trial absent proof of failure of justice.

Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed; the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC as recorded by the Sessions Court and affirmed by the High Court were upheld; the Supreme Court found no ground to interfere and confirmed that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.