Debojit Pankika Charaideo Sonari vs The State Of Assam

2026 INSC 687
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3909 OF 2025
DEBOJIT PANKIKA CHARAIDEO SONARI … APPELLANT (s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM … RESPONDENT (s)
J U D G M E N T
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
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-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHA SUNDRIYAL
Date: 2026.07.15
15:41:10 IST
Reason:
appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 [hereinafter referred to as “IPC”]. The appellant was
1

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
2. The factual matrix of the case is that a minor girl named
(also referred to as Haru Kharia) [hereinafter
Soru Kharia
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,
2

the appellant allegedly had neither conducted a search nor
informed the deceased’s family.
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
3

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.
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.
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.
CONTENTIONS
4

8. Learned counsel for the appellant namely, Mr. D.B.
Goswami has made the following submissions:
8.1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended
that the charges framed against the appellant are vague
and suffer from non-compliance with the mandate of
Section 212 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that a charge must
contain sufficient particulars as to the time, place and
manner of commission of the alleged offence so as to
afford the accused a fair opportunity to defend himself.
According to the learned counsel, the charge in the
present case neither specifies the exact date and time of
the alleged murder nor identifies the place within the
village where the offence is stated to have been
committed or the manner in which murder was
committed. It was further submitted that the charges are
defective and thus no fair opportunity to defend himself
was granted to the accused appellant.
8.2. Learned counsel submitted that PW-9 Investigating
Officer admitted in cross-examination that he did not
know the actual date of the incident or the date of
5

disposal, and further admitted that neither the dead
body nor any incriminating materials were found against
the appellant.
8.3. It was contended that the High Court erred in describing
Kishore Mall PW-4 as a “sterling witness,” arguing that
he was a planted witness with a long-standing enmity
towards the appellant as appellant was prosecuted for
murder of uncle of PW-4. Learned Counsel argued that
there was no basis to conclude that the sack contained
the body of the deceased as PW-4 was neither an
eyewitness to actual commission of crime nor he had any
occasion to see the dead body. As per his own version,
the body was already tied in a sack and PW-4 only
accompanied the appellant to some distance. It is further
submitted that the testimony of PW-4 is nothing but
hearsay evidence as the appellant told him that the
deceased had burnt herself and such hearsay evidence is
clearly inadmissible.
8.4. Learned counsel further argued that even if testimony of
PW-4 were accepted, he would be an accomplice and not
6

a witness. He argued that since the prosecution did not
charge him as an accused, his statement holds no
evidentiary value under Section 30 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
8.5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that while recovery of a
corpus delicti is not always essential, the circumstantial
evidence in this case was not cogent or compelling
enough to prove homicidal death beyond reasonable
doubt. He argued that the only thing which goes against
appellant was that he did not inform that the deceased
was missing. Learned counsel relying on the judgment of
1
this Hon’ble Court in Sawal Das v. State of Bihar
argued that section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
is an exception to Section 101 the Indian Evidence Act
and thus Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act does not
absolve prosecution from discharging its primary burden
of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable
doubt.
1 (1974) 4 SCC 193
7

9. Per Contra , learned Sr. A.A.G., namely, Mr. Chinmoy Pradip
Sharma, appearing on behalf of the respondent/State of Assam
has made following submissions:
9.1 Learned Counsel contended that the prosecution has
established a complete and unbroken chain of
circumstantial evidence that satisfies all the conditions
laid down by this Court in Sharad Birdi Chand Sarda
2
v. State of Maharashtra , thereby excluding every
alternative hypothesis of innocence. It was submitted
that the deceased was under the exclusive custody and
control of the appellant when she went missing, and
appellant’s deliberate silence for 22 days, combined with
his total failure to search for the deceased or inform her
family, constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance
indicating his guilt.
9.2 Learned counsel argued that PW-4 is a credible and
reliable witness whose testimony before the Trial Court
regarding the appellant’s disclosure of the burning
incident and the subsequent disposal of the body in the
Teok River was entirely consistent with his statements
recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Learned
2 (1984) 4 SCC 116
8

counsel relying on judgments of this Hon’ble Court in
3
Sadhu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , Raman
4
Kalia v. State of Gujrat and Lakhwinder Singh v.
5
argued that the evidence of PW-4
State of Punjab
cannot be discarded solely on the ground of prior enmity
if the deposition is otherwise convincing and stands
corroborated by other facts.
9.3 Learned Counsel further emphasized that the appellant's
failure to offer any plausible explanation during his
examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. regarding
the deceased’s disappearance from his exclusive custody
or his failure to report disappearance for 22 days forms a
vital and additional link in the chain of circumstances.
9.4 Learned Counsel submitted that the non-recovery of the
dead body is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as
the appellant himself disposed of the body in Teok river
making recovery improbable and the half burnt green
apparel seen by PW-2/informant in the appellant’s
courtyard further supports prosecution case. Learned
counsel relying on judgment of this Hon’ble Court in
3 AIR 1978 SC 1506
4 AIR 1979 SC 1261
5 AIR 1993 SC 87
9

6
Sanjay Rajak v. State of Bihar argued that when
homicidal death is proven through other cogent and
satisfactory evidence, non-recovery is not fatal.
9.5 Finally, learned counsel submitted that both the Trial
Court and the High Court conducted a careful scrutiny
of the evidence and arrived at concurrent findings of guilt
based on legally admissible evidence, and since no
perversity or omission has been shown, the impugned
judgment warrants no interference by this Court.
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
6 (2019) 12 SCC 552
10

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)
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
11

conviction of the accused and awarding the sentence to the
accused for commission of offence.
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.
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
12

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.
15. As stated above, the present case falls into the category of
the cases of ‘ corpus delicti’ . The ‘corpus delicti’ in murder has two
13

components - death as the result, and criminal agency of another
as the means. Where there is direct proof of the one, the other
Corpus delicti’
may be established by circumstantial evidence. ‘
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.
7 8
State of Haryana , Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab , and
9
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
7 (2010) 8 SCC 536
8 (2012) 1 SCC 10
9 (1991) 3 SCC 471
14

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.”
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.
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
15

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.
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.
........................................J.
[SANJAY KAROL]
.........................................J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
JULY 13, 2026.
16