Accused can be convicted of murder even if the victim’s body is never recovered: SC

A missing body does not mean a missing murder, the Supreme Court of India has ruled. The apex court stated that an accused can be convicted of murder even if the victim's body is never recovered, emphasizing that the law requires proof that a crime was committed, not the production of a corpse. This clarification aims to prevent killers who successfully dispose of a body from escaping 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. The girl's body was allegedly thrown into a river and could never be traced. The court affirmed the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Gauhati High Court, ruling that the prosecution had established the offense 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.

"A person can be convicted of murdering another even if the latter’s body has not been recovered," the bench held in its judgment released on Wednesday. It clarified 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 addressed 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 a 2015 case.

The prosecution's case was that the child disappeared while in the appellant's exclusive care after her adoptive mother left for medical treatment. The prosecution relied on a witness who stated that the appellant confessed to the child catching fire and then forcing the witness, at knifepoint, to help transport the body wrapped in a sack towards the Teok river for disposal. Despite efforts, the body was not recovered. Rejecting the defense's argument that the non-recovery of the body fatally undermined the prosecution's case, the Supreme Court stated that the case squarely fell within 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, which can be established through circumstantial evidence.

“

corpus delicti means that the offence has been committed and not that the dead body of the murdered person has been recovered.