Absence Of DNA Testing Of Patrially Decomposed Body Does Not Vitiate Identification If Credible Witness Testimony Establishes Identity: Supreme Court
The Apex Court held that the identification of a partially decomposed dead body can be accepted without DNA testing where reliable and consistent testimony of witnesses familiar with the deceased establishes identity beyond doubt.
Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that non-conduct of DNA testing does not invalidate identification of a deceased person when credible witnesses who personally knew the deceased have consistently identified the body.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court convicting the appellant for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, while dismissing the appeal, observed that “the absence of DNA testing does not vitiate the identification when credible and consistent testimonies of witnesses who knew the deceased personally are available on record.”
Background
The prosecution case arose from the disappearance of a woman whose missing person report was lodged by her mother. During the investigation, it was discovered that her mobile phone was being used by an unknown person who demanded ransom from her husband.
Further inquiry revealed that the phone had been sold by the appellant to another individual, which formed an important link in the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution.
The prosecution alleged that the appellant conspired to abduct the deceased for ransom and subsequently murdered her, disposing of her body in a well.
After completion of the investigation, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The High Court affirmed the conviction, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court noted that the entire prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence and reiterated that a conviction in such cases requires a complete chain of circumstances leading only to the guilt of the accused.
Reaffirming the governing principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), the Court emphasised that each circumstance must be firmly established, consistent only with guilt, and must exclude every hypothesis of innocence.
Examining the evidence, the Court found that the prosecution had proved several crucial circumstances, including the recovery of the body at the instance of the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the appellant’s possession and sale of the deceased’s mobile phone after her disappearance, and corroborating witness testimonies.
On identification of the body, the Court rejected the contention that the absence of DNA testing rendered the prosecution's case unreliable. It noted that the body, though partially decomposed, was identified by witnesses who were personally acquainted with the deceased and whose testimonies were consistent and trustworthy.
The Court further observed that recovery of the body from a location disclosed by the accused constituted a strong incriminating circumstance demonstrating his exclusive knowledge of the place where it had been concealed.
The Court also noted that one of the witnesses had “specifically stated that though the body smelt rotten, the face of the deceased was still recognizable”. Medical evidence also confirmed that death was homicidal, with post-mortem findings showing ligature marks, fracture of thyroid cartilage, and other injuries consistent with strangulation.
Evaluating the cumulative effect of all circumstances, the Court held that they formed a complete chain pointing unerringly to the guilt of the appellant and that the concurrent findings of the courts below were justified.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstances proving the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that there was no ground to interfere with the concurrent conviction recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal was dismissed. The Court, however, granted liberty to the appellant to apply for remission, directing that any such request be considered in accordance with applicable policy.
Cause Title: Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 173)
Appearances
Appellant: Advocates E.R. Sumathy, AOR, S. Anand, & Harsh
Respondents: Advocates Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR, Anshuman Srivastav, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Astik Gupta, & Akanksha Tomar