Murder: Conviction: Corpus delicti means that the offence has been committed and not that the dead body of the murdered person has been recovered

Appeal

1. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gauhati at Guwahati in Criminal Appeal (J) No. 16/2019. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Charaideo, Sonari [hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”] passed in Session Case No. 10 (S-C) of 2016, thereby convicting the accused appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as “IPC”]. The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 6 months for the offence under Section 302 and to undergo R.I. for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 6 months for the offence under Section 201 IPC.

Brief facts

The deceased was an adopted child who went missing, and the appellant did not conduct any search nor inform the deceased’s family

2. The factual matrix of the case is that a minor girl named Soru Kharia (also referred to as Haru Kharia) [hereinafter referred to as “deceased”], aged approximately 10 years, had been adopted by Smt. Sumitra Panika, who is the mother of the present appellant. The deceased had been residing with the appellant and his mother for approximately seven years. In the first week of June 2015, Smt. Sumitra Panika left their residence to receive medical treatment, leaving the deceased child in the sole custody of the appellant. Subsequently, the child went missing. On 27.06.2015, one Babu Paik [hereinafter referred to as “informant”], who is the maternal uncle of the deceased, lodged a written complaint at the Sonari Police Station alleging that the deceased had been missing for 22 days and despite this, the appellant allegedly had neither conducted a search nor informed the deceased’s family.

FIR registered against the appellant u/s 365 IPC

3. It was in this background that the First Information Report No. 130/2015 was registered, initially under Section 365 of IPC, and the criminal machinery was set into motion.

4. During the course of investigation, police strongly suspected involvement of the appellant. Police based its investigation mainly on the disclosure statement of Kishore Mall/PW-4 who revealed that the appellant informed him that the deceased had burnt herself and compelled PW-4, under threat of a dagger, to assist in disposing of the dead body. As per PW-4, the body was placed in a sack, carried on a bicycle, and thrown into the Teok River.

5. The investigation concluded by filing chargesheet against the appellant under Sections 365, 302 and 201 of IPC. Sessions Case No. 10(S-C) was registered against the appellant and the Trial Court vide order dated 31.08.2016 charged the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The appellant claimed not guilty by denying the case of prosecution. The prosecution in support of its case examined 9 witnesses whereas the appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. In the statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as “C.R.P.C”], the appellant denied the case of prosecution against him.

Trial court convicted the appellant

6. On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court, vide its judgment and order dated 28.09.2018, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 6 months for the offence under Section 302 and to undergo R.I. for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 6 months for the offence under Section 201 IPC.

High Court dismissed the appeal

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Trial Court, appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court. Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court and the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 22.12.2022 dismissed the appeal, thereby sustaining the conviction. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court, the appellant approaches this Court by filing the present appeal.

Analysis

10. Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Learned Counsel for the respondent. We have also perused relevant material on record and the judgments passed by the Courts below.

11. The High court vide its judgment and order dated 22.12.2022 upheld the judgment and order of the Trial Court and sustained conviction of the appellant while observing as under:]

“30. Reverting to the case in hand, the prosecution evidence shows that the PW-4 Kishor Mall is the sterling witness in this case. He was a young boy at the relevant time of the occurrence. His evidence is consistent with his statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. There are no discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of PW-4. Therefore his evidence inspired confidence. He is a trüstworthy witness.

31. There exists unchallenged evidence in this case that Soru Kharia was the adopted daughter of Sumitra Panika and she was living with her till Sumitra had gone out of her house for medical treatment. The appellant also resided with his mother Sumitra Panika and Soru Kharia. Suddenly, Soru. Kharia disappeared after Sumitra Panika had left her house for medical treatment. The PW-4 Kishor Mall has stated in his evidence that the appellant had killed Soru Kharia by burning her and thereafter had thrown her dead body into river Teok. The statements of Kishor Mall under Sections 161 as well as 164 CrPC are consistent with his evidence. There is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve him.

32. The disappearance of Soru Kharia is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The failure of the appellant to offer a plausible explanation constitutes an additional link in the chain of circumstances against him. The facts so established in this case are consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the appellant and they are not explainable on any other hypothesis except that the appellant is guilty of murder of Soru Kharia.

33. Thus, we are of the opinion that the learned trial court has properly appreciated the prosecution evidence and arrived at a correct finding. (emphasis supplied)”

High Court is correct in confirming and upholding the judgment

12. Considering the material perused by us as well as on hearing the submissions of learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed no error in confirming and upholding the judgment of conviction of the accused and awarding the sentence to the accused for commission of offence.

Principle of ‘corpus delicti’

13. Admittedly, the present case falls under the category of the cases based on principle of ‘corpus delicti’. True, it is that as per the prosecution case, the minor girl aged approximately 10 years was murdered and her body was thrown in the river. The Investigating Officer in his deposition before the Court stated that the Investigating Agency made certain attempts to recover the body thrown in the river but they were unable to find out the dead body.

PW.4 evidence inspired confidence

14. 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.

Appreciation of case of corpus delicti

15. As stated above, 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 later’s body has not been recovered. It may not be out of place to refer to the judgments of this Court. As some of the facts are identical, we must refer to the judgment of this Court in the matter of Prithi v. State of Haryana, Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, and Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N.. The relevant paragraph from the judgment of this Court in Sevaka Perumal (supra), is as follows:-

“5……..The fact of death of the deceased must be established like any other fact. Corpus delicti in some cases may not be possible to be traced or recovered. Take for instance that a murder was committed and the dead body was thrown into flowing tidal river or stream or burnt out. It is unlikely that the dead body may be recovered. If recovery of the dead body, therefore, is an absolute necessity to convict an accused, in many a case the accused would manage to see that the dead body is destroyed etc. and would afford a complete immunity to the guilty from being punished and would escape even when the offence of murder is proved. What, therefore, is required 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.”

Failure of appellant in providing justifiable explanation about missing of the adopted child for 22 days

16. 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.

Appellant not reporting the child missing to the police is not the natural conduct

17. 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.

Conclusion

18. 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.

Resources

Judgments Cited in the Document

• Sawal Das v. State of Bihar (1974) 4 SCC 193: Cited by the appellant’s counsel to argue that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101, and thus does not relieve the prosecution from its primary burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Sharad Birdi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116: Cited by the respondent (State) to argue that the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence that satisfies the conditions necessary to exclude any alternative hypothesis of innocence.
• Sadhu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1978 SC 1506: Cited by the respondent to assert that the testimony of a witness (PW-4) cannot be discarded purely based on prior enmity if the evidence is otherwise convincing and corroborated.
• Raman Kalia v. State of Gujrat AIR 1979 SC 1261: Cited alongside Sadhu Singh by the respondent to support the argument that prior enmity does not automatically invalidate a credible witness deposition.
• Lakhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1993 SC 87: Cited by the respondent in the same context to reinforce that a witness’s evidence stands if it is convincing, regardless of prior enmity.
• Sanjay Rajak v. State of Bihar (2019) 12 SCC 552: Relied upon by the respondent to argue that the non-recovery of a dead body is not fatal to the prosecution’s case when homicidal death is proven through other cogent and satisfactory evidence.
• Prithi v. State of Haryana (2010) 8 SCC 536: Referred to by the Supreme Court when discussing the principle of corpus delicti.
• Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 1 SCC 10: Referred to by the Supreme Court alongside Prithi v. State of Haryana regarding cases based on the corpus delicti principle.
• Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. (1991) 3 SCC 471: Cited and directly quoted by the Supreme Court to clarify that corpus delicti implies the offense of murder has been committed, not that the dead body must necessarily be recovered. The quotation emphasized that requiring the recovery of a body to convict would allow guilty individuals to escape punishment by destroying the body.

Acts and Sections

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

• Section 302: Pertains to punishment for murder, for which the appellant was convicted.
• Section 201: Pertains to causing disappearance of evidence of an offense, for which the appellant was convicted.
• Section 365: The First Information Report was initially registered under this section, which relates to kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.):
  • Section 161: Relates to the examination of witnesses by the police during the investigation.
  • Section 164: Relates to the recording of confessions and statements by a Magistrate.
  • Section 212: Governs the requirements for particulars in a charge, including the time, place, and person against whom the offense is committed.
  • Section 313: Allows the court to examine the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against them.
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
  • Section 30: Governs the consideration of proved confessions affecting the person making them and others jointly under trial for the same offense.
  • Section 101: Sets the burden of proof, stating that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability must prove that those facts exist.
  • Section 106: Provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

Party

Debojit Pankika Charaideo Sonari versus The State of Assam - Criminal Appeal No. 3909 of 2025 - 2026 INSC 687- July 13, 2026 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale.