LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code can be sustained in the absence of the recovery of the victim’s body (corpus delicti).
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Sanjay Rajak vs. The State of Bihar
Judgment Date: July 22, 2019
Date of the Judgment: July 22, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 713
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., Navin Sinha, J.
Can a conviction for kidnapping and murder be upheld when the victim’s body is not found? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of *Sanjay Rajak vs. The State of Bihar*. The Court examined whether the lack of a body (corpus delicti) automatically invalidates a conviction based on strong circumstantial evidence. This judgment clarifies that while the recovery of the body is important, it is not the only factor to be considered in a criminal case. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, with the judgment authored by Justice Navin Sinha.
Case Background
The case revolves around the kidnapping of a 5-6 year old school-going child on April 12, 2007. The prosecution alleged that the co-accused, Balram, kidnapped the child from school around 12:15 pm. The appellant, Sanjay Rajak, and Balram were reportedly seen together with the child. According to their confessions, they killed the child and buried the body in the riverbed of Saryu at Chhapra. However, the police did not recover the body. The victim’s belongings were found at the appellant’s house.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 12, 2007 | Kidnapping of the victim from school around 12:15 pm. |
| April 12, 2007 | Appellant and co-accused Balram seen with the victim at a liquor shop. |
| April 12, 2007 | Appellant seen with the victim at a hotel. |
| Evening of April 12, 2007 | Hotel owner identifies the missing child from a television broadcast. |
| Later | Raid at the appellant’s house and recovery of the victim’s belongings. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted both the appellant, Sanjay Rajak, and the co-accused, Balram. However, the High Court acquitted Balram. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (criminal conspiracy). The appellant’s conviction under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (kidnapping for ransom) was upheld by the High Court.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provision in this case is Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with kidnapping for ransom, etc. It states:
“364A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc.—Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that the prosecution’s case is based on circumstantial evidence, and the chain of events is incomplete.
- The acquittal of the co-accused, Balram, who was identified as the kidnapper by a classmate of the victim (PW-10) and who allegedly made ransom calls, makes the conviction of the appellant unsustainable.
- The appellant contended that the evidence of PW-5, PW-8, and PW-9, who stated that the victim was last seen with the appellant, is based on probabilities and not conclusive proof.
- The failure of the police to recover the body casts doubt on whether the kidnapping even occurred.
State’s Arguments:
- The State argued that the acquittal of the co-accused, Balram, is irrelevant due to the evidence against the appellant.
- The State contended that the appellant’s conviction is valid and does not require any interference.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Appellant | Sub-Submissions by State |
|---|---|---|
| Circumstantial Evidence |
|
|
| Acquittal of Co-accused |
|
|
| Failure to Recover Body |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issue:
- Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in the absence of recovery of the corpus delicti (body of the victim), and considering the acquittal of the co-accused?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the conviction is sustainable in the absence of the corpus delicti and considering the acquittal of the co-accused? | Conviction upheld. | The Court held that the absence of the corpus delicti is not fatal to the prosecution’s case, especially when there is strong circumstantial evidence. The acquittal of the co-accused does not impact the case against the appellant. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rama Nand and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1981) 1 SCC 511 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The Court cited this case to emphasize that the absence of the corpus delicti does not automatically invalidate a conviction based on strong circumstantial evidence. |
| Sevaka Perumal and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1991) 3 SCC 471 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | This case was used to support the view that the recovery of the body is not an essential ingredient for a murder conviction, and that the fact of death can be proven through direct or circumstantial evidence. |
| Sattatiya alias Satish Rajanna Kartalla vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 3 SCC 210 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | The Court distinguished this case, stating that, unlike the present case, there was no credible evidence regarding the last seen theory, and the weapon recovery was also doubtful. |
| Lohit Kaushal vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 17 SCC 106 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | This case was distinguished because the appellant was made an accused based on the confession of a co-accused, and the vehicle allegedly recovered was not involved in the kidnapping. |
| Iqbal and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 623 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | The Court distinguished this case, noting that the identification parade was not substantive evidence, and there was no other incriminating evidence like recovery of articles from the appellant. |
| Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code | Indian Penal Code | Considered | The court considered the provision of law to determine the applicability of the provision to the facts of the case. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The prosecution’s case is based on circumstantial evidence, and the chain of events is incomplete. | The Court acknowledged that the case was based on circumstantial evidence but found the chain of events to be complete and convincing. |
| The acquittal of the co-accused, Balram, makes the conviction of the appellant unsustainable. | The Court held that the acquittal of the co-accused does not affect the case against the appellant, as there was sufficient evidence against the appellant. |
| The evidence of PW-5, PW-8, and PW-9 is based on probabilities and not conclusive proof. | The Court found the evidence of these witnesses to be credible and sufficient to establish that the victim was last seen with the appellant. |
| The failure of the police to recover the body casts doubt on whether the kidnapping even occurred. | The Court stated that the failure to recover the body is not fatal to the prosecution’s case, especially when other evidence is strong. |
| The State argued that the acquittal of the co-accused, Balram, is irrelevant due to the evidence against the appellant. | The Court agreed with the State, stating that the evidence against the appellant was sufficient for conviction. |
| The State contended that the appellant’s conviction is valid and does not require any interference. | The Court agreed with the State, upholding the conviction of the appellant. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court relied on Rama Nand and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1981) 1 SCC 511* and Sevaka Perumal and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1991) 3 SCC 471* to emphasize that the absence of the corpus delicti is not fatal to the prosecution’s case when there is strong circumstantial evidence. The Court distinguished Sattatiya alias Satish Rajanna Kartalla vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 3 SCC 210*, Lohit Kaushal vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 17 SCC 106* and Iqbal and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 623* on the grounds that those cases had different factual scenarios and lacked the kind of incriminating evidence present in this case.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the strong circumstantial evidence against the appellant. The fact that the victim was last seen with the appellant, coupled with the recovery of the victim’s belongings from the appellant’s house, weighed heavily in the Court’s decision. The Court also noted that the appellant did not provide any explanation for the recovery of the victim’s belongings from his house.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Last seen evidence with the appellant | 40% |
| Recovery of victim’s belongings from appellant’s house | 35% |
| Lack of explanation from the appellant | 20% |
| Failure to recover the body not fatal | 5% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 75% |
| Law | 25% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual aspects of the case (75%), particularly the circumstantial evidence, while legal considerations (25%) were also important in upholding the conviction.
The Court considered the circumstantial evidence to be strong enough to establish the guilt of the appellant. The absence of the body was not considered a bar to the conviction in light of the other evidence presented.
The court observed that, “It is not an invariable rule of criminal jurisprudence that the failure of the police to recover the corpus delicti will render the prosecution case doubtful entitling the accused to acquittal on benefit of doubt.”
The court also stated, “In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the failure of the police to recover the dead body is not much of consequence in the absence of any explanation by the appellant both with regard to the victim last being seen with him coupled with the recovery from his house of the belongings of the deceased.”
Further, the court noted, “The mere acquittal of a co-accused in the facts and circumstances of the case can be of no benefit to the appellant.”
Key Takeaways
- The absence of the corpus delicti (body of the victim) does not automatically lead to the acquittal of the accused.
- Conviction can be based on strong circumstantial evidence, especially when the accused fails to provide a reasonable explanation for incriminating evidence.
- The acquittal of a co-accused does not necessarily benefit another accused if there is sufficient evidence against them.
- Identification of a known person by voice is a valid form of evidence in criminal jurisprudence.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the absence of the corpus delicti is not fatal to the prosecution’s case if strong circumstantial evidence is available. This judgment reinforces the principle that a conviction can be upheld even without the recovery of the victim’s body, provided that the other evidence is conclusive and the accused fails to provide a reasonable explanation. This case does not change the existing law but rather clarifies its application in cases involving circumstantial evidence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Sanjay Rajak under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code. The Court emphasized that the lack of the corpus delicti is not a bar to conviction when strong circumstantial evidence is present. This judgment underscores the importance of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases and clarifies that the recovery of the victim’s body is not always necessary for a conviction.
Source: Sanjay Rajak vs. State of Bihar