Non-Recovery of Corpus Delicti is Not Fatal to a Conviction for Murder Based on Cogent Circumstantial Evidence.

The deceased, aged 10, was the adopted daughter of the appellant’s mother and resided with them.

While the mother was away for medical treatment in June 2015, the deceased went missing while in the sole custody of the appellant.

The appellant failed to search for the child or inform the family for 22 days.

Based on the disclosure of PW-4, it was alleged that the appellant accused the child of theft, causing her to set herself on fire, after which the appellant compelled PW-4 to help dispose of the body in the Teok River in a sack.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, which was upheld by the High Court.

1. Whether the non-recovery of the dead body (corpus delicti) is fatal to a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC

2. Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of PW-4 and the appellant's silence, is sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt

3. Whether the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act shifts to the accused when a person disappears from his exclusive custody

Section 302 (Murder) and Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC.

Doctrine of corpus delicti: recovery of the body is not an absolute necessity if death and criminal agency are proved through reliable circumstantial evidence, citing Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. and Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab.

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the burden of proving facts "specially within knowledge".

"Chain of circumstances" test from Sharad Birdi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.

The Court held that the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstances. Crucially, the Court found PW-4 to be a "sterling" and credible witness; despite claims of enmity, his testimony regarding the disposal of the body was consistent and corroborated by the appellant's conduct.

Regarding corpus delicti, the Court reasoned that insisting on the recovery of the body would grant immunity to criminals who successfully destroy evidence by throwing it into rivers.

The appellant failed to provide any "justifiable explanation" under Section 106 of the Evidence Act for the child's disappearance while in his exclusive custody, and his 22-day silence was deemed a strong incriminating link.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, including the sentence of life imprisonment, was upheld.