The High Court of Delhi has upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a couple, Abrar and Shanno, for the murder of a man with whom the female appellant allegedly had an illicit relationship. In its judgment, the Court observed that the mere non-recovery of the dead body (corpus delicti) does not render a prosecution case doubtful if there is an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, including “last seen” testimony and recoveries made at the instance of the accused.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja dismissed the appeal filed by the convicts against a 2002 trial court verdict. The Court directed the appellants to surrender within two weeks to undergo the remainder of their sentences.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to July 2000. According to the prosecution, the deceased, Mr. Sitabi, had an illicit relationship with Shanno (Appellant No. 2). To end this, Sitabi’s brother, Wahid Khan (PW-1), got him married to his sister-in-law on July 14, 2000. However, on July 20, 2000, Sitabi went to his room in Moonga Nagar and subsequently disappeared.
The prosecution alleged that the appellants, Abrar and Shanno, lured Sitabi to Vamanpuri, Rampur, on the pretext of attending a marriage. There, they allegedly made him drink excessively, strangulated him with a cloth tape (katran) on a bridge over the Ram Ganga river, and threw his body into the river after robbing him of two gold rings, a wrist watch, and cash.
The appellants were arrested on August 26, 2000, and led the police to the recovery of the stolen items and the cloth tape used in the crime.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellants contended that the conviction was unsustainable as it rested solely on “last seen” evidence and that there was a significant one-month delay in filing the missing person report. They argued that the dead body had never been recovered and that the recovered articles were “planted” by the police. Reliance was placed on several Supreme Court decisions, including Rambraksh @ Jalim v. State of Chattisgarh and Murugan v. State, to argue that “last seen” evidence alone cannot justify a conviction.
Conversely, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State argued that there was a “complete chain of circumstantial evidence.” The APP highlighted that the appellants disappeared simultaneously with the deceased and were only traced a month later. He further argued that the recoveries of the deceased’s belongings—identified by a jeweler—from the house of Shanno’s sister and a goldsmith to whom a ring was sold, provided the necessary corroboration.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court focused on two primary legal issues: the validity of the “last seen” theory in this context and the impact of the non-recovery of the dead body.
On “Last Seen” Evidence: The Court noted that the landlady (PW-4) and the deceased’s brother-in-law (PW-2) had seen the deceased leaving with the appellants on the night of July 25, 2000. While acknowledging that “last seen” evidence requires corroboration, the Bench stated:
“In the present case, having found that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants… these circumstances coupled with the last seen evidence, establish the guilt of the appellants.”
On Non-Recovery of the Dead Body (Corpus Delicti): Addressing the defense that the body was never found, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sanjay Rajak v. State of Bihar:
“It is not an invariable rule of criminal jurisprudence that the failure of the police to recover the corpus delecti will render the prosecution case doubtful entitling the accused to acquittal on benefit of doubt.”
The Bench further quoted Rama Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh:
“A blind adherence to this old ‘body’ doctrine would open the door wide open for many a heinous murderer to escape with impunity simply because they were cunning and clever enough to destroy the body of their victim.”
The High Court found that the prosecution had proved “telling and inculpating circumstances,” such as the recovery of the deceased’s rings and watch at the instance of the appellants, which “unerringly” led to the inference of a homicidal death.
Conclusion and Decision
The Court concluded that the chain of events was complete and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. It found no merit in the appeal and upheld the conviction under Sections 302 (murder), 365 (kidnapping), 201 (disappearance of evidence), and 404 (dishonest misappropriation of property) of the IPC.
The Court ordered:
“The appellants must surrender, within a period of two weeks from today, to undergo their remaining sentence. In the event of failure to surrender… appropriate steps shall be taken by the State to ensure their arrest.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Abrar Etc. v. N.C.T. of Delhi
- Case Number: CRL.A. 567/2002
- Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja
- Date of Judgment: March 18, 2026
