Rishipal vs. State of Uttarakhand,
Criminal Appeal No. 928 of 2009, Decided on January 8th, 2013
In this case no direct evidence
adduced to prove that victim, whose corpus delicti had not been recovered, was
done to death, nor any evidence adduced to show where and when the same was
disposed of by the appellant assuming that he had committed the crime alleged
against him.
The Court discussed the legal
position regarding production of corpus delicti to prove charge of murder.
The Court held:
“In the absence of corpus delicti what the
court looks for is clinching evidence that proves that the victim has been done
to death. If the prosecution is successful in providing cogent and satisfactory
proof of the victim having met a homicidal death, absence of corpus delicti
will not by itself be fatal to a charge of murder. Failure of the prosecution
to assemble such evidence will, however, result in failure of the most
essential requirement in a case involving a charge of murder.” [Para 13]
The Court however on the facts
and circumstances of the case held:
“There is no evidence either direct or
circumstantial about Abdul Mabood having met a homicidal death. The charge of
murder levelled against the appellant, therefore, rests on a rather tenuous
ground of the two having been last seen together to which aspect we shall
presently advert when we examine whether the two being last seen together is
proved as a circumstance and can support a charge of murder”.
The Court referred following case
laws:
Rama Nand and
Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1981) 1 SCC 511, the Court summed up the
legal position on the subject as:
“....…….In
other words, we would take it that the corpus delicti, i.e., the dead-body of
the victim was not found in this case. But even on that assumption, the
question remains whether the other circumstances established on record were
sufficient to lead to the conclusion that within all human probability, she had
been murdered by Rama Nand appellant? It is true that one of the essential
ingredients of the offence of culpable homicide required to be proved by the
prosecution is that the accused caused the death" of the person alleged to
have been killed.
28. This means
that before seeking to prove that the accused is the perpetrator of the murder,
it must be established that homicidal death has been caused. Ordinarily, the
recovery of the dead-body of the victim or a vital part of it, bearing marks of
violence, is sufficient proof of homicidal death of the victim. There was a
time when under the old English Law, the finding of the body of the deceased
was held to be essential before a person was convicted of committing his
culpable homicide. "I would never convict", said Sir Mathew Hale,
"a person of murder or manslaughter unless the fact were proved to be
done, or at least the body was found dead". This was merely a rule of
caution, and not of law. 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
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 eye-witness,
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,
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….”
Ram Chandra & Ram Bharosey v.
State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 381, where the Court said:
“It is true
that in law a conviction for an offence does not necessarily depend upon the
corpus delicti being found. There may be reliable evidence, direct or
circumstantial, of the commission of the murder though the corpus delicti are
not traceable.”
State of Karnataka vs M.V. Mahesh
(2003) 3 SCC 353 where the Court observed:
“It is no
doubt true that even in the absence of the corpus delicti it is possible to
establish in an appropriate case commission of murder on appropriate material
being made available to the court. In this case no such material is made
available to the court.”
Lakshmi and Ors. v. State of
Uttar Pradesh (2002) 7 SCC 198 the legal position was reiterated :
“16.
Undoubtedly, the identification of the body, cause of death and recovery of
weapon with which the injury may have been inflicted on the deceased are some
of the important factors to be established by the prosecution in an ordinary
given case to bring home the charge of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. This,
however, is not an inflexible rule. It cannot be held as a general and broad
proposition of law that where these aspects are not established, it would be
fatal to the case of the prosecution and in all cases and eventualities, it
ought to result in the acquittal of those who may be charged with the offence
of murder. It would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. A
charge of murder may stand established against an accused even in absence of
identification of the body and cause the death.”
To see full
text of judgment follow the link: