Daksh Paraja Pati vs State of Punjab

Swatanter Kumar, J.

The learned counsel for the appellants did emphasise that dead bodies of the deceased were not recovered and as such the very basis of the prosecution case is imaginary. We do not find any merit in this contention inasmuch as the prosecution has established by proper and cogent evidence including the extra judicial confessions, disclosure statements made by the accused and the eye version account given by PW 6 fully corroborated by other statements that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was not necessary for the prosecution to show the recovery of the dead bodies. Once they were killed and thrown into the canal by the accused in presence of the witness, the Court cannot reject the testimony of such a witness merely for absence of the bodies of the deceased were not recovered. In this regard reference can be made to the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Gulam Chaudhury v. State of Bihar, 2001(4) RCR(Criminal) 347 (SC) where the Court held as under :

"There can be no dispute with the proposition of law set out above. As is set out in the various authorities (referred to above) it is not at all necessary for a conviction for murder that the corpus delicti be found. Undoubtedly, in the absence of the corpus delicti there must be direct or circumstantial leading to the inescapable conclusion that the person has died and that the accused are the persons who had committed the murder. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion, based upon the evidence of P.Ws 3 and 4 (who were eye witnesses) that Appellant No. 9 had killed the accused before the body was taken away by all the Appellants. We have read the evidence of all the witnesses. We have given a careful consideration to the material on record. We see no reason to take a different view."