Facts
The deceased, a 10-year-old girl adopted by the appellant’s mother, was left in the exclusive custody of the appellant when his mother went for medical treatment. The child went missing and remained unreported for 22 days. During investigation, PW-4 stated that the appellant told him the child had burnt herself and, under threat of a dagger, compelled him to assist in transporting a sack containing the body towards the Teok River for disposal. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under S.302 IPC and S.201 IPC, and the High Court affirmed the conviction.
Issues Framed
Whether the conviction could be sustained despite non-recovery of the dead body and whether the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence.
Court’s Reasoning
(a) The Court held that PW-4 was a reliable witness. His testimony remained consistent with his statements under S.161 CrPC and S.164 CrPC, and nothing substantial emerged in cross-examination to discredit him. The allegation of prior enmity did not diminish his credibility.
(b) The Court reiterated that recovery of the dead body is not indispensable for a conviction. Corpus delicti means proof that the offence was committed, not necessarily recovery of the corpse. Murder may be established by reliable direct or circumstantial evidence. The Court relied on Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N., Prithi v. State of Haryana, and Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab.
(c) The appellant failed to explain the disappearance of the child who was in his exclusive custody. His failure to report the child missing or inform her relatives for 22 days constituted a significant incriminating circumstance strengthening the prosecution case.
Held
The appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence under S.302 IPC and S.201 IPC were affirmed.
Ratio
Failure to recover the dead body is not fatal where reliable evidence proves the fact of death and the criminal agency, and the accused's unexplained conduct completes the chain of circumstances.
Relevant Para
Para 15
“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….. 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.”
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 687
Decided on: 13 July 2026
Case Title: Debojit Pankika Charaideo Sonari v. State of Assam
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; Prasanna B. Varale, J.