The Supreme Court observed that the failure of the Police to recover the dead body of the victim will not by itself render the prosecution case doubtful entitling the accused to acquittal on benefit of doubt.
The bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha made it clear that it is only one of the relevant factors to be considered along with all other attendant facts and circumstances to arrive at a finding based on reasonability and probability based on normal human prudence and behavior.
The Court was dealing with the appeal made by the convict-appellant that non recovery of the dead body makes the prosecution case doubtful. The accused who was convicted under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code for Kidnap and killing a child aged 5-6 years has demanded for aquital under benefit of doubt.
Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the acquittal of coaccused/ appealant is irrelevant in the nature of the evidence available against the appellant. His conviction therefore calls for no interference.
The Court after examining the submissions and agruements concuded that, "It is not an invariable rule of criminal jurisprudence that the failure of the police to recover the corpus delecti will render the prosecution case doubtful entitling the accused to acquittal on 6 benefit of doubt. It is only one of the relevant factors to be considered along with all other attendant facts and circumstances to arrive at a finding based on reasonability and probability based on normal human prudence and behavior. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the failure of the police to recover the dead body is not much of consequence in the absence of any explanation by the appellant both with regard to the victim last being seen with him coupled with the recovery from his house of the belongings of the deceased."
The Court mentioned Rama Nand and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1981).
It said it was a case of circumstantial evidence where the corpus delicti was not found. This court upholding the conviction observed:
“28…..But in those times when execution was the only punishment for murder, the need for adhering to this cautionary rule was greater. Discovery of the dead body of the victim bearing physical evidence of violence, has never been considered as the only mode of proving the corpus delicti in murder. Indeed, very many cases are of such a nature where the discovery of the dead body is impossible. A blind adherence to this old “body” doctrine would open the door wide open for many a heinous murderer to escape with impunity simply because they were cunning and clever enough to destroy the body of their victim. In the context of our law, Sir Hale’s enunciation has to be interpreted no more than emphasising that where 7 the dead body of the victim in a murder case is not found, other cogent and satisfactory proof of the homicidal death of the victim must be adduced by the prosecution. Such proof may be by the direct ocular account of an eyewitness, or by circumstantial evidence, or by both. But where the fact of corpus delicti i.e. “homicidal death” is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence alone, the circumstances must be of a clinching and definitive character unerringly leading to the inference that the victim concerned has met a homicidal death. Even so, this principle of caution cannot be pushed too far as requiring absolute proof. Perfect proof is seldom to be had in this imperfect world, and absolute certainty is a myth. That is why under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, a fact is said to be “proved”, if the court considering the matters before it, considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The corpus delicti or the fact of homicidal death, therefore, can be proved by telling and inculpating circumstances which definitely lead to the conclusion that within all human probability, the victim has been murdered by the accused concerned….”
It thus dismissed the appeal on July 22, 2019
Read Order here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
