The recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused.
This was what the Supreme Court (SC) categorically held in State v Laly @ Manikandan in an appeal against the judgement of Madras High Court which acquitted murder accused. Even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted if there is direct evidence in the form of eyewitness.
The SC states that the eyewitness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and that 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.
Similarly, the court held that even in the case of some contradictions with respect to timing of lodging the FIR/complaint cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when the prosecution case is based upon the deposition of reliable eyewitness.
There can be a conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eyewitness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable, says the SC.
