Indian Penal Code,1860; Section 299-304- Conviction does not depend upon whether the dead body is found, if reliable evidence, direct or circumstantial, of the commission of homicide is established despite the non-tracing of the dead body (Para 30 of Ravikumar J Judgment)- production of a dead body to prove a murder is not necessary in the eye of law (Para 12 of Sanjay Kumar J Judgment)
Legal Maxims -‘Corpus delicti’– ‘body of the crime’- Generally, this principle has reference to the requirement of the prosecution proving that the crime has been committed, so as to charge the delinquent and secure a conviction (Para 12 of Sanjay Kumar J Judgment)- It means that before seeking to prove that accused is the author of the crime concerned, it must be established that the crime charged has been committed. In fact, the said Latin expression is used with reference to the establishment of the fact that an offence has been committed, as opposed to the proof that a given person has committed it – (Para 30 of Ravikumar J Judgment)
Summary: Appeal against concurrent conviction under Section 304-II read with Section 34 IPC -Appellants are members of the police force and the allegation against them is of misuse and abuse of their powers, in resorting to custodial torture of Shama @ Kalya, s/o Nanu Ukey, and tampering with evidence- In appeal, Supreme Court delivered split verdict – CT Ravikumar J held in the absence of evidence regarding the homicidal death of Shama @ Kalya, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the charge – Sanjay Kumar J dismissed appeal – Ravikumar J held that once the dead body is said to have been traced and it is, then, not proved to be of that person, it would be fatal to the case of the prosecution. But according to Sanjay Kumar J, when sufficient evidence is available to conclude that deceased was in no position to escape from the custody of the appellants, the inevitable corollary that follows is that he died due to their torture while in their custody.