The Supreme Court has ruled that a person can be convicted for murder even if the body of the victim remains untraced. "Sometimes,there may not be any distinction between proof of the fact of the crime and the proof of the actor of it. "The evidence of the corpus delicti (proof of body) and the guilt of the person charged with an offence many a time is so inter-connected that one cannot be separated from the other. The same evidence often applies to both the fact of the crime and the individuality of the person who committed it," a Bench of Justices R M Lodha and A K Patnaik said in a judgement. The apex court passed the judgement while dismissing the appeal filed by convict Prithi challenging life imprisonment imposed by a sessions court for the murder of one Ami Lal on October 3,1990,in Haryana. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the sentence. The incident of Prithi and his accomplices gunning down Ami Lal was witnessed by his brother Chottu Ram. But the accused carried away the body after committing the crime and it remained untraceble till date. The defence took the plea that since the body was not traced,the prosecution could not establish the guilt. However,the apex court rejected the argument and said though the body had remained untraced,the two lower courts had fully believed the account of Chottu Ram who was roped in as prosecution witness. "It is,thus,seen that Prosecution Witness-9 has been accepted by the trial court as well as the High Court as a reliable witness. Once PW-9 is accepted,his evidence proves the fact of death of Ami Lal and also renders the commission of crime by the accused (including the appellant) certain. "It is true that he is related witness inasmuch as he happens to be the brother of the deceased but that,in our view,would not render his evidence unworthy of credence. Nothing inherently improbable has been brought out which may justify rejection of the testimony of PW-9. "His conduct of having stayed behind the bushes for about 4/5 hours and not informing the police or villagers of the incident until the police arrived on scene at about 3.00p.m. may look at the first blush a little out of the ordinary but on a deeper scrutiny does not appear to be unusual or exceptional," the apex court said while dismissing the appeal.
