Source: Indian Express 

Introduction 

In recent legal proceedings, the court held that the courts could convict individuals of murder even when a victim's body is not recovered, relying on the principle of corpus delicti. This legal concept allows the prosecution to be based on sufficient circumstantial evidence that establishes "within all human probability" that the accused committed the crime. While physical remains provide direct evidence, their absence doesn't automatically prevent conviction if other compelling evidence exists. 

What was the Background and Court observation of the court Ashwini Bidre murder case? 

Background: 

• Abhay Kurundkar was a former police inspector in Maharashtra's Raigad district. 
• Kurundkar was convicted of murdering assistant inspector Ashwini Bidre-Gore on 11th April 2016. 
• The court sentenced Kurundkar to life imprisonment on 21st April 2025. 
• The victim's body was never recovered from the crime scene. 
• Prosecutors alleged that Kurundkar and two associates dismembered the body. 
• The dismembered remains were allegedly disposed of in a creek using plastic bags and weights. 
• Kurundkar claimed that Ashwini had not died but had left for a Vipassana meditation camp. 
• The defense strategy emphasized the complete absence of physical evidence. 
• No physical remains, DNA evidence, blood samples, or murder weapon were ever found. 
• No witnesses observed Kurundkar disposing of the body. 

Court Observations: 

• The court determined that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 
• The prosecution successfully demonstrated that Ashwini had visited Kurundkar's house on the evening of her disappearance. 
• The court concluded that Ashwini was killed at Kurundkar's residence that evening. 
• The circumstances presented did not support Kurundkar's claim that Ashwini had left voluntarily. 
• Ashwini had parked her car with the clear intention to return. 
• Ashwini had not informed her landlord, family, or daughter about any plans to leave. 
• Kurundkar was unable to explain his false entries in the police logbook about being on patrol duty the night of the crime. 
• Kurundkar could not justify repainting his flat without the landlord's permission soon after the disappearance. 
• Additional Sessions Judge K.G. Paldewar stated that absence of a body is not absolute grounds to exonerate offenders. 
• The judge noted that requiring a body would create a loophole for murderers to exploit. 

What is Corpus Delicti ? 

• Corpus delicti is a Latin phrase that literally translates to "body of the crime." 
• Corpus delicti refers to the principle that a crime must be proven to have occurred before a person can be convicted of committing that crime. 
• The principle does not actually require the physical body of a murder victim to be found. 
• Corpus delicti consists of two elements:  
  • The occurrence of a specific injury. 
  • Loss and someone's criminal act as the cause of that injury or loss. 
• In murder cases, corpus delicti requires proof that a death occurred and that the death resulted from criminal activity rather than natural causes, accident, or suicide. 
• The Supreme Court of India has established that absence of a victim's physical body is not fatal to a murder charge. 
• Courts have ruled that when a body cannot be recovered, prosecutors must present "clinching evidence" proving the victim met a homicidal death. 
• The prosecution must provide "cogent and satisfactory proof" that convinces the court that a murder has occurred. 
• Under old English law, recovering the body was once considered essential to convict a person of murder. 
• Sir Matthew Hale, a historical judge and jurist, cautioned against conviction without finding the body or proving the death occurred. 
• The modern legal standard relies on whether the evidence is "inconsistent with the innocence claimed by the accused." 
• The corpus delicti principle protects against convicting people for crimes that never occurred. 
• To establish corpus delicti in no-body murder cases, prosecutors typically build a comprehensive case of circumstantial evidence. 
• This evidence may include the victim's normal habits, uncharacteristic disappearance, relationship with the accused, and the accused's behavior after the disappearance. 
• Technical evidence like cell phone records, surveillance footage, and forensic analysis often plays a crucial role in establishing corpus delicti. 

Conclusion 

The absence of a victim's body presents challenges but doesn't preclude murder convictions when prosecutors establish a convincing chain of events through technical and circumstantial evidence. Courts carefully evaluate whether available evidence is "inconsistent with the innocence claimed by the accused" before rendering judgment. As demonstrated in recent Indian cases, comprehensive circumstantial evidence can satisfy legal requirements for conviction even without recovering physical remains.