Recovery Of Dead Body Not Necessary For Murder Conviction : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man for the murder of a 10-year-old girl and for causing the disappearance of evidence, reiterating that the non-recovery of a dead body is not fatal to a murder prosecution when the prosecution establishes a complete chain of reliable circumstantial evidence.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale rejected the accused's contention that non-recovery of the deceased's body proved fatal to the prosecution's case, noting that if the accused's contention is accepted, then in every case where the body remained untraceable, the accused would be let go without any penal consequences. The Court relied on Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N., (1991) 3 SCC 471 where it was held that “…to base a conviction for an offence of murder is that there should be reliable and acceptable evidence that the offence of murder, like any other factum of death was committed and it must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, although the dead body may not be traced.”

“The 'corpus delicti' in murder has two components - death as the result, and criminal agency of another as the means. Where there is direct proof of the one, the other may be established by circumstantial evidence. 'Corpus delicti' means that the offence has been committed and not that the dead body of the murdered person has been recovered. A person can be convicted of murdering another even if the later's body has not been recovered.”, the Court added.

A 10-year-old girl, Soru Kharia (also referred to as Haru Kharia), who had been adopted by the appellant's mother, Smt. Sumitra Panika, had been living with the appellant and his mother for nearly seven years. In the first week of June 2015, Sumitra Panika left home for medical treatment, leaving the child in the appellant's care. The girl subsequently went missing. On June 27, 2015, her maternal uncle, Babu Paik, lodged a complaint with the Sonari Police, alleging that the child had been missing for 22 days and that the appellant had neither searched for her nor informed her relatives. Based on the complaint, the police registered an FIR under Section 365 IPC.

During the investigation, the police came to suspect the appellant primarily on the basis of the disclosure statement of Kishore Mall (PW-4). According to PW-4, the appellant told him that the child had been burnt and, at dagger-point, forced him to help dispose of the body by placing it in a sack, transporting it on a bicycle, and throwing it into the Teok River. After completing the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against the appellant under Sections 365, 302 and 201 IPC. The Sessions Court subsequently framed charges against him for murder and causing disappearance of evidence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

Though the body was never recovered, the appellant was convicted by the Trial Court and High Court, prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Affirming the conviction, the judgment authored by Justice Varale expressed doubt over the conduct of the Appellant, who remained silent for over 22 days after the deceased went missing. This unusual conduct of the Appellant, according to the Court, formed incriminating material against him, which was not even discharged during the stage of defence statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Further, the Court rejected the Appellant's defence under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, noting that the Appellant cannot get the benefit of the provision, as the prosecution had discharged the initial burden of proof showing that the fact of how the deceased went missing was in the exclusive knowledge of the Appellant, which was not discharged by the Appellant.

“The child was missing for a long time i.e. 22 days and as such it was expected of the accused to offer some justifiable explanation about missing child but the accused utterly failed to provide any such explanation. It would have been natural conduct of the accused to report to the Police if the child was missing for a long period or to inform some of the relatives but the accused made no such attempt.”, the court said.

The Court found the PW 4 testimony to be credible, which remained firm and undisturbed, who was threatened with a dagger, and that there was no evidence suggesting he shared any criminal intent with the appellant.

The Court further observed that had PW-4 been falsely implicating the appellant due to previous enmity, he could easily have claimed to be an eyewitness to the murder. Instead, he confined his testimony to the events he actually witnessed, thereby lending credibility to his evidence.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Appellant's. conviction.

Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 & 201 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 313 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 106 — Conviction on circumstantial evidence and testimony of a material witness upheld despite non-recovery of the dead body - Corpus Delicti in Murder Cases - Corpus delicti means that the offence has been committed and not that the dead body of the murdered person has been recovered - A person can be convicted of murdering another even if the later's body has not been recovered - If recovery of the dead body is treated as an absolute necessity to convict an accused, it would afford complete immunity to the guilty from being punished in cases where the body is destroyed or thrown into a flowing river - What is legally required to base a conviction for murder is reliable and acceptable direct or circumstantial evidence proving the factum of death. [Para 15]

Evidentiary Value of Coerced Witness - The testimony of a witness (PW-4) who was threatened at the point of a dagger by the accused to assist in transporting the wrapped body on a bicycle for disposal cannot be discarded as an interested witness or an accomplice - The witness stood firm in cross-examination, and his natural, limited narrative (accompanying the accused only for some distance out of fear) establishes his reliability and credibility - Where a 10-year-old minor child was left in the exclusive custody of the accused by his mother, and the child went missing for 22 days, it was naturally expected of the accused to either report the matter to the police or inform the relatives - The absolute failure of the accused to offer any justifiable or plausible explanation during his Section 313 CrPC examination constitutes a vital additional link in the chain of circumstances to establish his guilt. [Relied on Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N., (1991) 3 SCC 471; Prithi v. State of Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC 536; Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10; Paras 14-17]

Cause Title: DEBOJIT PANKIKA CHARAIDEO SONARI VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 691

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. D. B. Goswami, Adv. Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Arunansh Bharti Goswami, Adv. Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit Roy, AOR Ms. Mrinalini Ramesh, Adv.