Can Conviction For Homicide Be Awarded In Absence Of Proof Of Identification Of Recovered Dead Body?

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a split verdict in the case of Manik & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1514-1518 of 2012), raising critical questions about the evidentiary standards required for homicide convictions, especially in cases of custodial deaths where the identity of the recovered body is uncertain. The case involved the death of Shama Kalya, a history-sheeter who was allegedly tortured to death by the Gondia Police during interrogation. His body was found in a forest, but the identity was disputed, leading to a legal battle.

 

The key legal questions were whether a conviction for homicide can be sustained without conclusive identification of the victim’s body, and what standard of proof applies in custodial deaths. The police officers involved were initially convicted of culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a conviction upheld by the Bombay High Court. They appealed, arguing that the identity of the body had not been definitively proven.

 

Justice C.T. Ravikumar, in his opinion, upheld the conviction, stating that while the body’s identity wasn’t conclusively established, the circumstantial evidence was strong enough to link the officers to the custodial death. He emphasized witness testimonies, especially from Shama's wife, and the failure of the police to produce Shama before a magistrate as required by law.

 

However, Justice Sanjay Kumar dissented, arguing that the lack of conclusive identification, particularly the absence of DNA testing, created reasonable doubt. He stressed that without definitive proof of the body’s identity, the officers could not be convicted of homicide, and the benefit of the doubt should go to the accused.

 

The split verdict has led to the case being referred to a larger bench for further consideration, leaving important questions about the standard of proof in custodial deaths unresolved for now. This case reflects the ongoing challenge of balancing justice and the rights of the accused in custodial death cases, especially when forensic evidence is inconclusive.