Risk Of Wrongful Conviction 'Dangerously High': P&H High Court Acquits 3 In Murder Case Where Dead Body Was Not Found

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted three men–convicted of murder by the trial court, citing the absence of a recovered dead body and insufficient proof of the crime.

A driver hired by three men for a journey to Punjab to Uttarakhand went missing with the car. Later the vehicle was recovered from Bihar, but the driver remained untraceable. During investigation, accused Niyaz, Imran and others confessed to having murdered Gian Chand and throwing his body into the Agra canal but the body was never recovered.

A division bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul and Justice H.S. Grewal said,

"The most significant lacuna in the case of the prosecution is the complete failure to recover the dead body of the deceased. The case, therefore, rests on the presumption of death without any direct proof of homicide. The principle of corpus delicti – the requirement of proving that crime has actually occurred – becomes extremely relevant."

Speaking for the bench Justice Kaul added that, no doubt in some instances, conviction can be sustained even in the absence of the body, such cases rest on overwhelming circumstantial evidence, which is conspicuously lacking here. The bench said:

"In the absence of proof of death, the risk of wrongful conviction becomes dangerously high."

The Court was hearing an appeal filed against conviction in the case under Sections 302, 364, 201 wherein the accused persons were sentenced to life imprisonment.

It was argued that argued that motive for the alleged offense has not been proved. No material was placed on record to indicate any enmity or other compelling reason for the appellants to cause the death of Gian Chand (deceased).

Furthermore, the last seen theory is solely sought to be proved through the testimony of  Daya Chand (brother of the deceased), an interested witness, whose version lacks corroboration from any independent source.

Counsels also argued that recovery of incriminating articles, namely the purse and wrist-watch of the deceased, was allegedly made pursuant to disclosure statements of the accused appellants. However, the recoveries were made several months later from open places accessible to all, thereby diminishing their evidentiary worth.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the essential links in such a chain typically include proof of motive, last seen theory, recovery of incriminating articles, medical or forensic evidence supporting the cause of death and of any other corroborative evidence.

In the above background, it would be necessary to examine whether the prosecution was successful in discharging its burden in the present case, the bench said.

The Court opined that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, 'motive' plays a significant role. The prosecution, however, in the present case, has failed to prove any motive whatsoever for the commission of the alleged crime.

While it was vaguely suggested that robbery was the motive, no credible evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the same. The trial Court also did not record any cogent finding on the issue of motive, it added.

Stating that "last seem theory" is highly doubtful, the Court noted that the only evidence pressed into service in support of the same, is the testimony of, Daya Chand, the brother of the deceased, who deposed that he saw the deceased leave with the accused in the vehicle.

"This witness, being closely related to the deceased, is an interested witness. His testimony is not corroborated by any independent evidence," it added.

"Furthermore, the so-called recovery of the wallet and wristwatch of the deceased, which forms the sole incriminating circumstance against the accused, is fraught with serious legal infirmities. These articles were allegedly recovered several months later from open and accessible places, pursuant to disclosure statements made by the accused. The evidentiary value of such recoveries is highly questionable and does not inspire confidence," the bench observed.

It also highlighted that key prosecution witnesses, turned hostile and denied having made any incriminating statements to the police nor did they identify the accused during trial.

The Court concluded that on an overall assessment of the material on record, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances linking the appellants to the commission of the alleged offense.

Above all, the non-recovery of the dead body, cumulatively render the case of the prosecution wholly unsustainable in law, it added.

In the light of her above, the appeal was allowed.

 Mr. Deepak S. Saini & Ms. Vamika Johar, Advocates for the appellants in CRA-D-554-DB-2004.

Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate for the appellant in CRA-D-609-DB-2004.

Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the appellant in CRA-D-25-DB-2005.

Mr. Karan Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent/State.

 Title:Niyaz etc. v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 305

Click here to read/download the order