The Supreme Court has ruled that an accused person can be convicted of murder even if the victim’s body is never recovered, stating that the absence of a corpse does not prevent the law from establishing that a crime has taken place. The court observed that requiring the recovery of a dead body in every murder case would allow perpetrators who successfully dispose of evidence to escape punishment. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prasanna B Varale delivered the ruling while upholding the life sentence awarded to an Assam man convicted of murdering his 10-year-old adopted daughter.

The victim’s body was allegedly thrown into a river and could not be traced, but the court held that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of both the trial court and the Gauhati High Court, which had earlier convicted the accused. The bench noted that criminal law does not require the physical recovery of a victim’s remains to establish a murder charge. Instead, prosecutors must prove that a person was killed and that the accused was responsible for the crime through reliable evidence.

“A person can be convicted of murdering another even if the latter’s body has not been recovered,” the bench said in its judgment released on Wednesday. The court clarified the meaning of the legal term corpus delicti, stating that it refers to proof that an offence has been committed and does not necessarily mean that the dead body of the victim must be found. The ruling addressed a common argument raised in cases where victims disappear and their bodies are not recovered. The court said that accepting the absence of a body as a reason for acquittal would create a situation where criminals could avoid conviction simply by hiding or destroying evidence.

Also Read: Supreme Court Appoints Two Bhutanese Professionals As Law Clerks Under CJI Surya Kant

Such an interpretation, the bench noted, would weaken the justice system and encourage attempts to conceal crimes. In the Assam case, the prosecution relied on evidence presented during the trial to establish the accused’s involvement in the child’s death. Although the victim’s remains were not recovered, the courts found that the circumstances and evidence presented by investigators were strong enough to prove the murder. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that criminal convictions must be based on evidence rather than the presence of physical remains. Investigative material, witness accounts, forensic findings and surrounding circumstances can collectively establish guilt even when a body cannot be located.

Legal experts have often pointed out that missing-body murder cases present unique challenges for investigators and courts. However, Indian courts have previously held that a conviction is possible when the prosecution can establish a complete chain of evidence linking the accused to the crime. The latest judgment provides further clarity on the issue and prevents accused persons from using the non-recovery of a body as an automatic defence. The Supreme Court’s observation highlights that the primary requirement in a murder case is proving that a crime occurred and identifying the person responsible, rather than merely producing the victim’s remains before the court.

Also Read: Witness Influence Allegations In Karur Stampede Case Reach Supreme Court For Hearing