The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the absence of a recovered dead body does not prevent a conviction for murder if the prosecution establishes death and criminal agency through reliable circumstantial evidence.
Dismissing a criminal appeal from Assam, the bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld the conviction and life sentence awarded to an accused for the murder of a 10-year-old adopted girl, holding that the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of circumstances pointing exclusively towards his guilt.
The case concerned the disappearance and subsequent presumed murder of Soru Kharia, a minor girl aged around 10 years, who had been adopted by the appellant’s mother nearly seven years earlier. Following the adoptive mother’s departure from home for medical treatment in June 2015, the child remained in the exclusive care of the appellant.
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
When the child remained untraceable for over three weeks, her maternal uncle lodged a missing complaint with the Sonari Police Station, alleging that despite the child’s disappearance, the appellant neither searched for her nor informed her relatives. An FIR was initially registered under Section 365 IPC before the investigation ultimately led to charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
During investigation, police relied heavily upon the testimony of a witness who stated that the appellant had confessed that the child had sustained burn injuries and had compelled him, under threat with a dagger, to assist in disposing of the body by transporting it in a sack on a bicycle and throwing it into the Teok River. Despite extensive efforts, the child’s body was never recovered.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant for murder and causing disappearance of evidence, sentencing him to life imprisonment along with separate punishment under Section 201 IPC.
The Gauhati High Court subsequently affirmed the conviction, describing the prosecution witness who assisted in the disposal of the body as a “sterling witness”, whose testimony remained consistent throughout investigation and trial. The High Court also treated the appellant’s complete failure to explain the child’s disappearance while she remained in his exclusive custody as an important incriminating circumstance completing the chain of evidence.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the conviction on multiple grounds. It was argued that the charges were vague and failed to specify the exact time, place and manner of the alleged offence, thereby violating the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The defence further contended that the prosecution’s principal witness was unreliable because of previous hostility towards the appellant and that his evidence amounted merely to hearsay. It was also argued that the witness himself should have been treated as an accomplice rather than an independent witness.
The appellant further submitted that the prosecution had failed to recover either the body or any forensic evidence connecting him with the alleged murder and that Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The State, however, argued that the prosecution had established every link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. It emphasized that the deceased was last seen in the appellant’s exclusive custody, that he failed to report her disappearance for twenty-two days, and that the witness’s testimony regarding disposal of the body remained consistent from the investigation stage through trial. The State also argued that non-recovery of the body was not fatal where convincing evidence otherwise established homicidal death.
Agreeing with the concurrent findings of the courts below, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court observed that the most crucial piece of evidence was the testimony of the prosecution witness who stated that the appellant informed him that the child had died after suffering burn injuries and thereafter forced him to assist in transporting the body wrapped inside a sack towards the river. The witness consistently maintained this version throughout investigation and trial and remained unshaken during cross-examination.
Rejecting the argument that the witness was motivated by previous enmity, the Court noted that had he truly intended to falsely implicate the appellant, he could easily have claimed to be an eyewitness to the murder itself. Instead, his testimony was confined only to the events surrounding disposal of the body, lending greater credibility to his evidence.
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment is the Court’s reaffirmation of the doctrine of corpus delicti.
The Bench explained that corpus delicti in murder consists of two essential elements—the fact of death and that the death resulted from the criminal act of another. Recovery of the dead body is not an indispensable legal requirement for conviction.
Referring to earlier Supreme Court precedents including Sevaka Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, Prithi v. State of Haryana, and Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that if recovery of the body were treated as mandatory, offenders could escape punishment simply by successfully disposing of the victim’s remains.
The Court emphasized that where reliable direct or circumstantial evidence establishes both death and criminal agency, conviction can validly follow even if the victim’s body is never found.
The Court also attached considerable importance to the appellant’s conduct after the child’s disappearance.
The Bench observed that the appellant himself admitted during his examination under Section 313 CrPC that the child had been residing with him and his mother and that the mother had left the child in his exclusive care before departing for medical treatment.
Despite the child remaining missing for twenty-two days, the appellant neither informed the police nor contacted any relatives or made any effort to trace her. The Court held that such conduct was wholly unnatural and that the complete absence of any plausible explanation constituted an additional incriminating circumstance reinforcing the prosecution’s case.
Finding no perversity in the appreciation of evidence by either the Trial Court or the Gauhati High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
