Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Corpus Delicti, a Latin phrase which means the body of the crime originated as a doctrine to prevent the judgment in those cases where there is a lack of evidence to prove that the crime took place; let alone committed by the accused individuals. This term legally means: a crime must have occurred in the very first place to establish a charge. In this term the body implies the evidence and not certainly a corpse, the term can be used to mean any material evidence of the crime or any proof in that particular case law. The effect of Corpus delicti falls under the admissible of confessions. The components of corpus delicti establish a close relationship along with the role of confessions in a particular case.
The components are:
a) The occurrence of the crime and,
b) The occurrence is the intentional act committed by the accused.
Both these components go hand in hand, the absence of any of the components hampers the role of confessions somehow or other weak as the confessions cannot alone establish the guilt in the absence of a piece of evidence. The actual occurrence of crime is not sufficient proof required, as the guilt of the accused of the same needs to be pointed out in that direction too.
In-State v. Nicely, the body of the victim, the defendants wife was never recovered. But there was no circumstantial evidence from the victim's blood marks to her car which was abandoned over a bridge in addition to the defendants conflicting statements to the same. The defendant was convicted over circumstantial evidence for the murder of his wife, here the genus of corpus delicti takes a tricky position.
It has been established over several judicial decisions that the absence of the body itself does not mean the absence of corpus delicti.
Therefore, speaking the mind of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it's not associated with the constant rule of criminal jurisprudence that the failure of the police to recover the corpus delecti can render the prosecution case uncertain entitling the defendant to final judgment on the advantage of the doubt. It's just one of the relevant factors to be thought-about alongside all alternative attendant facts and circumstances to gain a finding supported reasonability and likelihood supported traditional human prudence and behavior.
Entering the realm of such cases wherever within the cases of putting to death the recovery of the body has not been made, the load shifts from establishing evidence to establishing an associate iron-tight link of specific shreds of evidence that leaves little doubt thus on the guilt of the defendant.
Therefore, in Sanjay Razak, wherever every single proof on record, from the witnesses to the recovery of the victim's belongings from the appellant's house pointed within the direction of the appellant's guilt, the appellant was guilty within the absence of evidence. during a similar case wherever the Apex Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, it created a remarkable observation that may additionally raise many eyebrows: however in those times once execution was the sole penalty for murder, the necessity for adhering to the current cautionary rule was bigger.
Discovery of the natural object of the victim bearing physical proof of violence has ne'er been thought-about because of the sole mode of proving the evidence in a murder. Indeed, several cases are of such a nature wherever the invention of the natural object is not possible. Blind adherence to the current recent body belief would open the door wide open for several an atrocious criminal to flee with exemption just because they were crafty and clever enough to destroy the body of their victim.
86540
103860
630
114
59824