The Delhi High Court once again reiterated that the recovery of weapons used in the offense is not a necessary condition for proving the guilt of an offender.
A division bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri rejected the contention made by the counsel for the opposite side that the weapon used was not recovered and ruled that the testimony given by the complainant and his brother is coherent and credible.
After noting the marks of injuries on the victim, the court held that it proved to be the material of an offense punishable under section 307.
This was observed when the court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by a person who had been grievously hurt for murder. The trial court had sentenced the accused to six years’ rigorous imprisonment. Therefore, the convict challenged the order of the lower court in the Delhi High Court.
Initially, the bench rejected the contention that there was a material contradiction in the testimony at the time of the incident, as the parties knew each other well.
The court observed that the appellant had earlier also attacked the complainant and a complaint was also registered in respect of him.
The court also rejected the contention of the appellant that the weapon used by him was not recovered and ruled in the interim that the recovery of weapons is not a necessary condition for punishment and that the injury marks on the victim and the evidence presented by them is sufficient to prove them credible.
Though the High Court proved the guilt of the accused, the Court, after noted that the appellant had behaved properly while, in jail and old parents and siblings at home, therefore, the Court Compounded the sentence of the accused.