The Supreme Court (SC) delivered a landmark verdict on Friday, asserting that the absence of a victim’s body does not prevent a court from convicting a person accused of murder, noting that the law requires proof that a crime has been committed, not the recovery of the victim’s mortal remains.

“A missing body is not a missing murder,” the top court remarked while upholding the life term of a man from Assam convicted of killing his 10-year-old adopted niece, whose body was allegedly disposed of in a river and was never found.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Prassan B Varale reinforced the legal principle that a murder can be proved through credible direct and circumstantial evidence, even when the victim’s body is not found.

Life sentence upheld in Assam child murder case

The apex court’s ruling came in an appeal filed by Debojit Pankika, who challenged his conviction under Sections 302 (Murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code in connection with a case dating back to 2015.

As per the prosecution, the 10-year-old girl had been living with the appellant and his mother, both of whom had adopted the female kid. The child went missing after the appellant’s mother left home for medical treatment, leaving the girl solely in his care.

The prosecution’s case primarily rested on the testimony of a key witness who claimed that the appellant confessed the child had caught fire after being accused of stealing Rs 40. The witness alleged that the appellant then threatened him with a knife and forced him to help transport the girl’s body, wrapped in a sack, to the Teok River, where it was allegedly disposed of.

Although the police were unable to recover the body despite searches, the trial court and the Gauhati High Court (HC) found the evidence sufficient to convict the accused. The SC has now affirmed the rulings made by both the courts.

‘Corpus Delicti’ refers to crime’s proof, not body’s recovery

The SC junked the defence’s contention that the absence of the body fatally weakened the prosecution’s case and clarified the legal doctrine of corpus delicti.

The Bench noted that corpus delicti means establishing that a criminal offence has taken place, not producing the victim’s body before the court. In a murder case, the doctrine requires proof of two essential elements; that the victim is dead and that the death resulted from the criminal act of another person.

The court observed that while one of these elements may be proved through direct evidence, the other may be established through reliable circumstantial evidence.

The judges further maintained that making recovery of the body an indispensable requirement for conviction would enable offenders who successfully dispose of a corpse to evade punishment.

Accused fails to explain child’s disappearance

The SC then found the prosecution’s principal witness to be credible despite allegations of prior hostility with the accused

The witness consistently said that he had been threatened with a dagger and was compelled to accompany the appellant while the body, tied in a sack, was transported on a bicycle for disposal. The court observed that the witness’s admission that he had not seen the actual murder strengthened, rather than weakened, his credibility.

The Bench also treated the appellant’s inability to explain the child’s disappearance for 22 days as a significant incriminating circumstance, concluding that the prosecution had established the chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.