In a very important judgment rendered by the bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari of the Supreme Court, held that "Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused. If there is a direct evidence in the form of eye witness, even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted."

The Supreme Court also held that "the examination of the complainant in a criminal trial is also not essential and observed that "Merely because the original complainant is not examined cannot be a ground to discard the deposition of PW1. As observed hereinabove, PW1 is the eyewitness to the occurrence at both places. Similarly, assuming that the recovery of the weapon used is not established or proved also cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when there is a direct evidence of the eye witness."

Authoring the judgment, Justice MR Shah observed that "PW1 is an eye witness. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution. As per settled position of law, there can be a conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable."

Setting aside the order of Madras High Court judgment dated 12.06.2018 of acquitting 3 accused persons. recording the facts the court observed that owing to animosity between the friend of accused Selvakumar and Periyavan @ Murugan, there was a murder of Selvakumar on 31.07.2013 suspecting that the deceased Saravanan had informed the whereabouts of Selvakumar. the accused armed with weapons on a two-wheeler obstructed the car in which the deceased, PW1, and one another were traveling and dashed the car, and broke the windscreen of the car with aruvals. A1 caused the injury on the right shoulder of the deceased. The deceased Saravanan tried to run away, however, the accused chased him and thereafter all the accused caused injuries on the deceased in the shed in which the deceased reached and due to the injuries suffered the deceased Saravanan died on the spot.

FIR was registered, the accused were arrested and after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted. 21 witnesses were examined out of which 3 witnesses turned hostile and Trial Court believing the testimony of PW-1, PW-4, and PW-6, convicted the accused persons under section 302, 34 IPC.

Case Details:-

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1750-1751 OF 2022
State through the Inspector of Police …Appellant
Versus
Laly @ Manikandan & Another Etc. …Respondents

Read the Complete Judgment on the following link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/7239/7239_2019_6_1503_38956_Judgement_14-Oct-2022.pdf