Must Prove Identity Of Deceased In Homicide Case: Madras High Court Faults Police, Trial Court For Not Conducting DNA Test Of Decomposed Corpse

While doing so, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal noted that in homicidal death cases, the primary fact that had to be proved was the identity of the deceased, which was not done in the present case. The court added that unless the identity of the deceased is proved, the court could not go into other materials relied upon by the prosecution.

“In a case of homicidal death, the primary fact that has to be established by the prosecution is as to the identity of the deceased. Only if the identity is fixed, the Court can go into the other factors touching upon the materials relied upon by the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts,” the court said.

In the present case, noting that the body of the deceased was in a decomposed state and even the face was not identifiable, the court criticized the investigating agency for its failure to conduct a DNA test to establish the identity, even when the samples were present. The court also noted that the trial court had proceeded to find the wife guilty of the offence on the mere assumption that the body discovered was that of her missing husband.

“The investigating officer has to be entirely blamed for this fiasco. To an extent the trial Court must also be blamed in this regard. The trial Judge ought to have physically verified the photographs to satisfy himself as to whether PW1 could have identified the corpse as her son. The trial Judge has merely gone on assumptions. If only the investigating officer or atleast the trial Judge had ordered for DNA analysis, in no time it could have been established whether the corpse was actually that of the deceased or it was the corpse of someone else,” the court observed.

The court further noted that the trial court, while convicting the woman, had noted that the defence had not disputed the identity of the deceased. The court highlighted that it was not for the defence to accept or deny the identity, and it was for the court to satisfy itself about the identity of the corpse.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the wife, Nandhini, against the judgment of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukottai. The prosecution's case was that Nandhini and her husband were living in Pudukottai District, and the couple regularly had wordy altercations. It was alleged that when the woman could not take it anymore, she decided to do away with her husband.

The prosecution argued that the woman had caused serious bleeding injuries, and the body was dragged and thrown into a nearby well. It was argued that the woman was nonchalant about her husband's disappearance. Later, when a foul smell started coming from the nearby well, the Village Administrative Officer was informed, who in turn informed the Circle Inspector of Police. The body was lifted from the well and was identified by Nandhini's mother-in-law based on the slipper and cell phone that were seized along with the dead body.

Based on the confession, the case was altered to offences under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC. The trial court concluded that the prosecution had established the case beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the woman.

The court noted that the entire prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence, as if the woman had killed her husband and threw him in a nearby well due to a strained relationship. The court noted that the trial court had concluded that the body discovered from the well was that of the husband. The court also noted that the trial court had noted that just because the DNA analysis was not carried out, it would not seriously result in disputing the identity of the corpse.

The court, upon perusing the photos from the scene, noted that the body recovered was completely decomposed, and what was available was a lump of flesh without any features. The court thus concluded that the only manner in which the identity of the deceased could have been established was througha  DNA test.

Thus, noting that the prosecution had failed to establish the identity of the corpse, the court said that it would be highly risky to go on an assumption to decide the case. The court thus set aside the conviction and acquitted the woman of all charges.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. K. C. Maniyarasu

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. E. Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Nandhini v. The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 108

Case No: Crl. A. (MD)No.467 of 2023