A Case Of Corpus Delicti: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Minor’s Murder Case Despite Non-Recovery Of Her Body

The Court was hearing an appeal against a Gauhati High Court judgment which had affirmed the Trial Court’s conviction of the accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale noted that the child, whom the accused’s mother had adopted, was living in the same house as the accused. After the accused’s mother left for medical treatment, the child went missing, and the accused failed to give any satisfactory explanation for her disappearance.

The Bench, upon examining the material placed on record, held: “…the present case falls into the category of the cases of ‘corpus delicti’. 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 latter’s body has not been recovered.”

Advocate D.B. Goswami appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Ankit Roy appeared for the State.

Background

The prosecution's case was that the minor girl had been living with the accused and his mother for several years. When the accused’s mother left the house for medical treatment, the child remained in the custody of the accused.

After the child went missing, a complaint was lodged alleging that she had not been seen for several days and that the accused had neither searched for her nor informed relatives about her disappearance.

During the investigation, the prosecution relied principally on the testimony of a witness who stated that the accused had told him that the child had burnt herself and had forced him, under threat of a dagger, to help carry a sack containing the body towards the river.

The Trial Court convicted the accused of murder and the disappearance of evidence. The High Court upheld the conviction, paving the way for an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court and the High Court. It noted that the witness relied upon by the prosecution had remained consistent in his statements and had withstood cross-examination.

The Court observed: “Now, the most important and crucial evidence against the accused is in the form of oral testimony of PW-4. The version of PW-4 clearly discloses the facts namely, the deceased minor girl was in the custody of the accused and on an allegation of the accused that she has stolen an amount of Rs.40/-, the deceased child set herself on fire. The accused then wrapped up the body of the child in a sack and then asked help from PW-4 to throw the body in the Teok river. PW-4 deposed before the Court that the dead body was tied to a bicycle. PW-4 accompanied accused to some distance and thereafter he came back. Though the witness was subjected to cross-examination, the witness stood firm. An attempt was made to submit that PW-4 is an interested witness as he was carrying the grudge against the deceased. The perusal of testimony of this witness show that he has deposed before the Court that he saw a sack was tied to the bicycle. The accused asked for help and initially the witness refused to help him but under the threat of dagger, the accused forced witness to help him and under that threat, PW-4 accompanied accused for some distance. If PW-4 was carrying grudge against the accused, he could have stated in his statement that he had seen the accused committing the murder or he would have deposed before the Court to that effect but in his testimony he only states that he accompanied accused for some distance. It may not be out of place to refer to the version of the witness before the Court in his examination-in-chief and it reads “I had to accompany the accused as he had threatened me to kill me. I went along with the accused because he had threatened me by showing a dagger. I stopped before reaching Teok river. The dead body was carried on a bicycle”. Accordingly, PW-4 emerges as a reliable and credible evidence.”

The Bench also noted that the High Court had treated the witness as trustworthy after finding his evidence consistent with his earlier statements recorded during the investigation.

The Court rejected the argument that the conviction could not be sustained because the dead body had not been recovered. It held that the case fell within the principle of corpus delicti, where what must be proved is the commission of the offence, not necessarily the recovery of the body.

The Court relied on the settled position that a murder conviction may be sustained even in the absence of recovery of the body, if reliable direct or circumstantial evidence proves the death and the criminal agency behind it.

The Supreme Court further found that the accused’s failure to explain the child’s disappearance was a significant circumstance. The child was admittedly living in the same house as the accused, and after his mother left for medical treatment, the child was left in his custody.

The Court noted: “The other factum supporting the case of prosecution is failure of the accused in providing justifiable explanation about missing of the child for 22 days who was in his custody. It is interesting to note that the accused/appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted: (i) that the deceased child used to live with him; (ii) mother of the accused was youngest paternal aunt of the deceased (bua); and (iii) mother of the accused adopted the deceased child as her daughter as such, she used to reside with the mother of the accused and accused was also residing in the same house along with his mother and the deceased child.”

The Bench added: “Admittedly, the mother of the accused left her house for medical treatment leaving the child in the house with the accused person. 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.”

While the appellant relied on Sawal Das v. State of Bihar (1974) to argue that Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not shift the prosecution’s burden, the Court found that the prosecution had independently established the material circumstances, and the accused’s failure to explain the disappearance operated as an additional link in the chain.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that both the Trial Court and the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that no interference was warranted.

The Court held: “Thus, considering the above-referred aspects, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Court committed no error in holding the accused guilty for the offences charged against him and accordingly awarding sentence to him as well as the High Court was also justified in upholding and confirming the judgment and order of the Trial court. Thus, the appeal being devoid of any merit deserves no interference at the hands of this Court and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

Cause Title: Debojit Pankika Charaideo Sonari v. The State of Assam (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 687)

Appearances

Appellant: D.B. Goswami, Advocate, with Dr Sushil Balwada, AOR, Advocates Kaushal Yadav, Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Arunansh Bharti Goswami, Ram Kishor Singh Yadav, Dr Ajay Kumar and Ritul Tandon

Respondent: Ankit Roy, AOR, with Advocate Mrinalini Ramesh

Click here to read/download Judgment