Non-recovery of corpus delicti is not fatal to a murder conviction supported by clinching circumstantial evidence.

The appellants, Abrar and Shanno (husband and wife), were convicted by the Trial Court for the abduction and murder of Sitabi, with whom Shanno allegedly had an illicit relationship.

Following Sitabi’s marriage to another woman on 14.07.2000, he disappeared on 25.07.2000.

He was last seen leaving his rented room with Shanno and later seen with both appellants at Brijpuri Pulia, where they claimed to be traveling to Rampur for a wedding.

After a missing person report was filed on 24.08.2000, the appellants were arrested on 26.08.2000.

Based on their disclosure statements, the police recovered the deceased's wrist watch and a gold ring from Shanno’s sister, a cloth tape (katran) allegedly used for strangulation from a jungle near the Ram Ganga river, and another gold ring from a jeweler to whom Abrar had sold it.

The deceased’s body was never recovered as it was allegedly thrown into the flooded river.

The appellants challenged their conviction under Sections 365/34, 302/34, 201/34, and 404 of the IPC.

1. Whether the "last seen" evidence, coupled with the established illicit relationship, is sufficient to point unerringly to the guilt of the appellants.

2. Whether the recovery of the deceased’s personal belongings (rings and watch) at the instance of the appellants justifies a presumption of murder under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.

3. Whether the non-recovery of the corpus delicti (dead body) is fatal to a prosecution for murder when based on circumstantial evidence.

The court applied Sections 302, 365, 201, and 404 of the IPC regarding murder, abduction, and disappearance of evidence.

It relied on Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which allows a presumption that a person in possession of recently stolen goods is either the thief or has knowledge of the theft, extending to a presumption of murder if the items belonged to the deceased.

Regarding the "last seen" theory, the court applied principles from Rambraksh @ Jalim v. State of Chhattisgarh and Navaneethakrishnan v. State, holding that while the time gap must be small, the theory serves as a vital link in the chain of circumstances.

On the issue of corpus delicti, the court followed Sanjay Rajak v. State of Bihar and Rama Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which establish that non-recovery of the body is not fatal if there is other cogent and clinching circumstantial evidence of homicidal death.

The court determined that the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.

First, the motive was found in the "jealousy and revenge" stemming from the deceased’s marriage, which threatened his illicit relationship with Shanno.

Second, the "last seen" evidence provided by the landlady (PW-4) and the brother-in-law (PW-2) was deemed trustworthy, placing the deceased in the appellants' company immediately before his disappearance.

Third, the court found the recoveries of the rings and watch to be "clinching" evidence; since these were identified as belonging to the deceased and were in the appellants' possession shortly after the crime, the court invoked the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act to link them to the murder.

The court rejected the argument that the delay in filing the FIR was fatal, noting that the brother’s initial efforts to search for the deceased privately were natural.

Finally, regarding the missing body, the court held that the appellants’ disclosure about throwing the body into a flooded river, combined with the recovery of the murder weapon (katran), provided sufficient proof of homicidal death despite the absence of the physical remains.

The court held that the non-recovery of the dead body does not entitle the accused to acquittal if the chain of circumstances—comprising motive, last seen evidence, and recovery of the deceased's articles—is complete and points exclusively to the guilt of the accused.

The appellants were directed to surrender within two weeks to undergo the remaining sentence.