A missing body is not a missing murder. The Supreme Court has ruled that an accused can be convicted of murder even if the victim’s body is never recovered, saying the law requires proof that a crime was committed -- not production of the corpse and warning that any such requirement would allow killers who successfully dispose of a body to escape justice.
The verdict came as a bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Prasanna B Varale upheld the life sentence of an Assam man convicted of killing a 10-year-old adopted girl whose body was allegedly thrown into a river and could never be traced.
The court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Gauhati high court, ruling that the prosecution had established the offence through credible evidence despite the absence of the body.
“A person can be convicted of murdering another even if the latter’s body has not been recovered,” held the bench in its judgment released on Wednesday, clarifying that “corpus delicti means that the offence has been committed and not that the dead body of the murdered person has been recovered.”
The ruling came in an appeal filed by Debojit Pankika of Assam, who challenged his conviction under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code in the 2015 case. The prosecution case was that the deceased child, who had been living with the appellant and his mother – the girl’s aunt, after being adopted, disappeared after the mother left home for medical treatment, leaving the child in the appellant’s exclusive care.
{{/usCountry}}The ruling came in an appeal filed by Debojit Pankika of Assam, who challenged his conviction under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code in the 2015 case. The prosecution case was that the deceased child, who had been living with the appellant and his mother – the girl’s aunt, after being adopted, disappeared after the mother left home for medical treatment, leaving the child in the appellant’s exclusive care.
{{/usCountry}}The prosecution relied principally on the testimony of a witness who stated that the appellant had confessed that the child caught fire after being accused of stealing ₹40 and had then forced him, at knifepoint, to help transport the body wrapped in a sack towards the Teok river for disposal. Despite repeated efforts, the investigating agency failed to recover the body from the river.
Rejecting the defence argument that non-recovery of the body fatally undermined the prosecution case, the Supreme Court said the case squarely fell within the category governed by the principle of “corpus delicti”. The doctrine, it explained, has two components in a murder case -- proof of death and proof that the death resulted from the criminal act of another. While one may be proved directly, the other can be established through circumstantial evidence.
The bench referred to earlier decisions to hold that insisting on recovery of the body as an absolute prerequisite would allow offenders who successfully dispose of a corpse to escape punishment. What the law requires, the court said, is “reliable and acceptable evidence” proving the fact of death and the commission of murder, whether by direct or circumstantial evidence.
The bench also found the testimony of the prosecution’s key witness to be reliable despite allegations of previous hostility with the accused. The witness had consistently maintained that he was threatened with a dagger and compelled to accompany the appellant while the body, tied in a sack, was carried on a bicycle. The fact that he did not falsely claim to have witnessed the actual murder enhanced rather than diminished his credibility, the court observed.
An additional incriminating circumstance, according to the bench, was the appellant’s complete failure to explain the child’s disappearance for 22 days, even though she had been left exclusively in his custody. The court noted that the appellant admitted the child lived with him and that his mother had adopted her, yet he neither informed the police nor alerted relatives after she went missing. Such conduct, it said, was inconsistent with ordinary human behaviour and provided another vital link in the chain of circumstances.
Finding no error in the appreciation of evidence by the courts below, the Supreme Court upheld the life sentence for murder and the seven-year sentence for causing disappearance of evidence, and dismissed the appeal.