Non-Recovery of the Dead Body Is Not an Absolute Requirement for Conviction: Delhi High Court Upholds Murder Conviction

"Circumstances Must Be of a Clinching and Definitive Character", A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, has upheld the conviction of two accused persons for the abduction and murder of a young man whose body was thrown into the river Ram Ganga and never recovered — holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence, including last seen testimony, recovery of the deceased's gold rings and wrist watch, and the cloth tape used to strangle him, was complete and pointed unerringly to their guilt.

Dismissing the criminal appeal filed by Abrar and Shanno against their conviction under Sections 365/34, 302/34, 201/34 and 404 IPC, the Court held that the absence of a corpse is not fatal to a murder prosecution where other cogent and clinching circumstances establish homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution's case unfolded against the backdrop of an illicit relationship. Appellant No. 2, Shanno, had developed an intimate relationship with the deceased, Sitabi, who lived in her neighbourhood in Moonga Nagar, Delhi. When Sitabi's family arranged his marriage to Shabana on 14 July 2000 in an effort to end the affair, the relationship turned fatal.

On 25 July 2000, Sitabi was last seen leaving his rented room at Bhagirathi Vihar with Shanno at about 8:30–9:00 p.m. His landlady, PW-4 Saraswati, witnessed his departure. Later that evening, his brother-in-law PW-2 Jakir spotted all three — Sitabi and both appellants — near Brijpuri Pulia at around 10:00 p.m. When asked where they were headed, Sitabi said they were going to attend a marriage in Rampur. He was never seen again.

A missing person report was lodged on 24 August 2000 by PW-1 Wahid Khan, the deceased's brother. Two days later, the appellants were arrested from Khajoori Pushta, Delhi. Their disclosure statements led police on a journey from Delhi to Rampur, Uttar Pradesh — and to a grim chain of recoveries.

The Disclosure Statements and What They Revealed

Upon arrest, both appellants disclosed that after taking Sitabi to Vamanpuri, District Rampur, they made him drink excessively, strangulated him with a cloth tape (katran) on the Ram Ganga bridge, stripped the body of two gold rings, a wrist watch, and Rs. 4,000 in cash — and threw the body into the river.

They revealed that one gold ring had been sold to goldsmith Sanjeev Kumar (PW-21) for Rs. 700, while the other ring and the wrist watch were left with Shanno's sister Rehana (PW-6) for safekeeping.

The police, accompanied by independent witness PW-3 Raisa and officers from multiple UP police stations, recovered the ring and wrist watch from Rehana's house, the cloth tape (katran) from the bushes near the Ram Ganga bridge, and the second gold ring from PW-21's shop — who produced a signed receipt bearing Abrar's signatures acknowledging the sale.

The rings were identified by PW-7 Shahid, the jeweller who had made them at the order of PW-1 and the deceased, and who also produced a purchase slip.

"Last Seen Theory Is Only One Link in the Chain — But a Vital One"

The appellants' counsel mounted a sustained attack on the last seen evidence, arguing that PW-2 Jakir had seen the deceased voluntarily leaving with Shanno and raised no alarm, and that PW-1 had waited nearly a month before filing a police complaint — a delay that, he argued, broke the chain of circumstances and undermined the prosecution's narrative entirely.

The Court acknowledged the legal position but rejected the conclusion sought by the appellants. Citing the Supreme Court's judgments in Rambraksh @ Jalim v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 12 SCC 251 and Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police, AIR 2018 SCC 2027, the Court reiterated that last seen evidence cannot alone sustain a murder conviction and must be corroborated by other proved circumstances.

"For PW-1 to make efforts on his own to find the whereabouts of the deceased rather than rushing to the police cannot be said to be unnatural," the Court observed, explaining that since the deceased was reported to have left voluntarily with someone he knew well and was in a relationship with, the family's reluctance to immediately approach the police was entirely explicable human behaviour.

Similarly, PW-2 had been told the group was heading to a marriage in Rampur. "It cannot be expected that PW-2 should have raised a hue and cry as he did not see the deceased thereafter for some time," the Court noted.

Gold Rings of the Dead Man in the Hands of the Accused — Presumption of Murder Activated

The Court found the recovery evidence to be the decisive pillar of the prosecution's case. It applied the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Gulab Chand v. State of M.P., (1995) 3 SCC 574, which held that when ornaments belonging to the deceased are found in possession of the accused shortly after the death, a presumption of guilt may be raised under Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — that the person in possession of recently stolen property had also committed the murder.

The Court noted that one ring was recovered from Shanno's own sister, the other from the goldsmith who produced a signed receipt of sale by Abrar, and the murder weapon — the cloth tape — was recovered from the jungle near the very bridge from which the body was thrown. Police officers from multiple UP police stations independently corroborated each recovery. DD entries established the movement of the Delhi Police party to Rampur. The remand application itself disclosed that the purpose of going to Rampur was to recover the body — which could only have been known from the appellants' own disclosures.

"Perfect Proof Is Seldom to Be Had in This Imperfect World"

The appellants' most significant argument was the absence of the dead body. The Court dealt with this squarely, holding that non-recovery of a corpse is not an absolute bar to conviction for murder.

Quoting at length from Sanjay Rajak v. State of Bihar, (2019) 12 SCC 552, and the foundational rulings in Rama Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1981) 1 SCC 511 and Sevaka Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1991) 3 SCC 471, the Court affirmed that what is required is "reliable and acceptable evidence that the offence of murder was committed" — proof that may come through circumstantial evidence alone, provided the circumstances are of "a clinching and definitive character unerringly leading to the inference that the victim has met a homicidal death."

The Court observed that insisting on recovery of a body in every case would "open the door wide open for many a heinous murderer to escape with impunity simply because they were cunning and clever enough to destroy the body of their victim."

In this case, the river was in flood during the monsoon season when the body was thrown in, the police had conducted searches at multiple UP police stations and deployed divers — but the Ram Ganga had done its work. The failure to recover the body in those circumstances could not enure to the benefit of the appellants.

Finding that the circumstances of last seen evidence, recoveries of the deceased's personal effects at the pointing of the appellants, the cloth tape used in the strangulation, and the signed sale receipt of the gold ring together formed a complete and unbroken chain pointing only to the guilt of the appellants, the Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants were directed to surrender within two weeks to undergo their remaining sentence, failing which the State was directed to ensure their arrest.

Date of Decision: 18 March 2026