Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not Sine Qua Non In Conviction

What did the Court say

• While upholding a murder conviction, the Supreme Court noted that recovering the weapon used in the conduct of the crime is not a sine qua non for convicting an accused.
• Minor inconsistencies that do not get to the heart of the matter and/or such contradictions are not material contradictions, according to the Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah.
• The evidence of such witnesses cannot be brushed aside and/or disbelieved.
• The Court further stated that the full material should be weighed with the other evidence on file. It said that a single statement here or there, and that too in response to a question posed by the defence during cross-examination, couldn’t be regarded as sufficient.

What was the case

• In this case, the defendants were found guilty under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code for killing one Bhishampal Singh in an incident that occurred on January 2, 2006.
• One of the arguments made on behalf of the accused in the appeal was that the bullet detected in the ballistic analysis did not match the fire arm/gun seized, implying that the use of the gun as stated is speculative and that the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt.
• The accused (Anil, Suresh, and Rakesh) were tried by the learned trial Court for killing one Bhishampal Singh on January 28, 2006, in an event punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC.
• Rakesh shot the dead with a home-made handgun, injuring him. Suresh and Anish were accused of assaulting the dead with their respective knives.

Legal Background

• Following a complete trial, the learned trial Court found all of the defendants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to life in prison.
• The defendants were also found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act, for which the learned trial Court issued a separate sentence.
• Section 34 states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
• Section 302 stipulates that anybody who commits murder shall be punished with the death penalty or life imprisonment, as well as a monetary penalty.

What do you think of this case? Let us know down in the comments section!