Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.45 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sevaka Perumal, Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 May, 1991
―4. It is a well-settled principle in law that in a trial for
murder, it is neither an absolute necessity nor an essential
ingredient to establish corpus delicti. The fact of the 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. There are a number of possibilities where a dead
body could be disposed of without a trace, therefore, if the
recovery of the dead body is to be held to be mandatory to
convict an accused, in many a case the accused would manage
to see that the dead body is destroyed which would afford the
accused complete immunity from being held guilty or from
being punished. What is therefore required in law to base a
conviction for an offence of murder is that there should be
reliable and plausible evidence that the offence of murder like
any other factum of death was committed and it must be proved
by direct or circumstantial evidence albeit the dead body may
not be traced. (See Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. [(1991) 3
SCC 471 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 724] ) Therefore, the argument that
in the absence of corpus delicti the prosecution case should be
rejected, cannot be accepted.‖
Rama Nand And Ors vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 6 January, 1981
In Rama Nand v. State of H.P. [(1981) 1 SCC 511 : 1981
SCC (Cri) 197] this Court summed up the legal position on the
subject as: (SCC pp. 522-23, paras 27-28)
―27. ... 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' [Ed.:
Ram Chandra And Anr. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 26 November, 1956
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
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. Nos. 1163/2017 & 36/2018 Digitally Signed Page 28 of 36
By:JUSTICE MUKTA By:POONAM BAMBA
GUPTA
2023:DHC:4296-DB
and inculpating circumstances which definitely lead to the
conclusion that within all human probability, the victim has
been murdered by the accused concerned.‖
(emphasis supplied)
To the same effect is the decision in Ram Chandra v. State of
U.P. [AIR 1957 SC 381 : 1957 Cri LJ 559] where this Court
said: (AIR p. 387, para 6)
―6. ... 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 on 4 March, 2003
12. Reference may also be made to State of
Karnataka v. M.V. Mahesh [(2003) 3 SCC 353 : 2003 SCC
(Cri) 795] where this Court observed: (SCC p. 354, para 3)
―3. ... 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 & Ors vs State Of U.P on 29 August, 2002
In Lakshmi v. State of U.P. [(2002) 7 SCC 198 : 2002
SCC (Cri) 1647] the legal position was reiterated thus: (SCC p.
205, para 16)
―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 IPC. 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
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.A. Nos. 1163/2017 & 36/2018 Digitally Signed Page 29 of 36
By:JUSTICE MUKTA By:POONAM BAMBA
GUPTA
2023:DHC:4296-DB
stand established against an accused even in the absence
of identification of the body and cause of the death.‖