The Supreme Court has clarified that a murder can be established even without the victim’s body. In a landmark decision, the court ruled that an individual may be found guilty of murder despite the body never being recovered, as long as the prosecution demonstrates through credible evidence that the crime was committed.
The division bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale noted that the law demands proof that a crime has occurred, rather than the presentation of the victim’s body. The court cautioned that insisting on the recovery of a body as a prerequisite for conviction would merely enable individuals who manage to dispose of a corpse to escape accountability.
Justice cannot depend on a body
The remarks were made while affirming the life imprisonment of an Assam man found guilty of killing his 10-year-old adopted daughter, whose body was reportedly discarded in a river and never recovered. The Supreme Court upheld the consistent conclusions of the trial court and the Gauhati High Court, ruling that the prosecution had established the offence with reliable evidence even though the body was not recovered.
In its ruling issued on Wednesday, the bench stated that an individual may be found guilty of murder even if the victim’s body is never recovered. Clarifying the doctrine of corpus delicti, the court explained that it refers to establishing that a crime has been committed, rather than proving that the deceased’s body has been found, TBC reported.The appeal was 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 stated that the deceased child, following her adoption, had been residing with the appellant and his mother, who was the child’s aunt. The adoptive mother had gone away to receive medical treatment, leaving the girl solely in the appellant’s care. Subsequently, the child disappeared.
Evidence over recovery
The prosecution’s case was based largely on the account of a witness who claimed the appellant admitted that the child was set on fire after being accused of stealing ₹40. According to this witness, the appellant then threatened him with a knife and compelled him to assist in transporting the child’s body wrapped in a sack on a bicycle, before disposing of it in the Teok river. Investigators, despite their attempts, were unable to retrieve the body.
Rejecting the defence's argument that the absence of the body weakened the prosecution's case, the Supreme Court said the matter fell squarely within the principle of corpus delicti. The court explained that in a murder case, the doctrine requires proof of death and proof that the death resulted from the criminal act of another. While one element may be established through direct evidence, the other can be proved through circumstantial evidence.
The bench, citing previous rulings, noted that insisting on the recovery of a body as an absolute condition for conviction would set a dangerous precedent, enabling offenders who manage to dispose of a corpse to evade punishment.
The court also concluded that the prosecution’s principal witness was credible, despite allegations of prior animosity with the appellant. It emphasized that the witness consistently stated he had been threatened with a dagger and compelled to go with the appellant as the body was moved in a sack. The bench noted that the witness’s refusal to falsely assert that he had witnessed the killing itself enhanced, rather than diminished, his reliability.
The Supreme Court further regarded the appellant’s inability to account for the child’s 22-day disappearance as an additional incriminating factor, strengthening the prosecution’s position.
The ruling sends a clear signal that justice cannot be derailed simply because a body is missing. By affirming that credible direct and circumstantial evidence can establish the crime of murder, the Supreme Court has closed a potential loophole that could have allowed perpetrators to escape accountability.