PRITHI versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 33 · Decided: 27-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 9 S.C.R. 33 
PRITHI 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1835 of 2009) 
JULY 27, 2010 
[R.M. LODHA AND A. K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.3021149, 3071149, 148 and 201 
- Prosecution under - Of five accused - Two eye-witnesses 
A 
B 
to the incident - One of the eye-witnesses related to the C 
deceased while the other was injured witness - Non-recovery 
of dead body -Conviction by Courts below - On appeal by 
appel/ant-ar;cused, held: Conviction justified -
It is not 
essential to establish 'corpus delic.ti' -
The prosecution 
evidence has established the commission of crime - Both the 
D 
eye-witnesses are reliable witnesses. 
Criminal Law - 'Corpus delicti' - Establishment of- Held: 
It i.<> r:ot essential to establish corpus delicti - The fact of death 
of deceased can be established like any other fact The 
E 
evidence of corpus delicti and the guilt of the person charged 
are often so interconnected that the same evidence applies 
to factum of crime as well as individuality of the accused 
thereof- Evidence. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 154 - Questioning by party of F 
his own witness - Held: If the party questions his own witness, 
it does not make the evidence of the witness inadmissible. 
Words and Phrases: Corpus delicti - Meaning of. 
Appellant-accused No.3, alongwith 4 other accused 
persons was prosecuted for killing one person and 
causing injuries to three persons including PWs 6 and 9 
with fire arms. As per the prosecution, PW6 got injured 
G 
33 
H 
34 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A in the incident. The accused party took away the dead 
body of the deceased alongwith them. The police, after 
recording the statement of PW.6, recorded FIR. The trial 
court convicted all the accused persons u/ss. 302/149, 
307/149, 148 and 201 IPC. Their appeal against the 
B conviction was dismissed by the High Court. The Special 
Leave Petition filed by accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 was 
dismissed by Supreme Court. 
In the instant appeal, appellant-accused No. 3 
c contended that the factum of the death of the deceased 
is disputed as his dead body was not recovered nor any 
post-mortem was conducted; that a person of the same 
name as that of the deceased was arrested and produced 
before a Magistrate in some other city; that the deposition 
o of PW-6 ought to have been accepted either as it is or 
should have been rejected in toto; that PW-9 was planted 
as eye-witness and being brother of the deceased was a 
highly interested witness. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In an appeal under Article 136 of the 
Constitution, this Court does not enter into detailed 
examination and re-appraisal of the evidence, particularly 
when there is concurrence of opinion between the two 
F courts below. On a careful examination of the evidence 
of PW-9 and the other evidence available on record, the 
Court is satisfied that no error has been committed by the 
High Court in affirming the conviction of the appellant for 
the offences punishable u/ss. 302/149, 307/149, 148 and 
G 201 IPC. [Para 22] [49-E-F] 
2.1. The question regarding the death of the 
deceased relates to the proof of 'corpus delicti'. The term, 
'corpus delicti' generally means, when applied to any 
H particular offence, the actual commission by some one of 
PRITHI v. STATE OF HARYANA 
35 
the particular offence charged. In a murder case, 'corpus A 
delicti' consists of proof of the death of a person alleged 
to have been murdered and that such death has been 
caused by commission of crime by some one. It is sound 
principle in criminal jurisprudence that one does not 
begin to inquire whether the prisoner is guilty of a crime B 
until one has established that a crime has been 
committed. [Para 6] (42-0-F] 
Rex v. Patrick McNicho/11911(2) l.R.557; The King v. 
Horry, 1952 NZLR 111, referred to. 
Words and Phrases, Vol.9A, 2nd reprint, 1976,West 
Publishing Co.; Sir Matthew Hale in 'The History of the Pleas 
of the Crown', Vol. II 290 (1800 Edition); Halsbury's Laws of 
England, 2nd Edition 449, referred to. 
c 
D 
2.2. It is not essential to establish corpus delicti. The 
fact of the death of the deceased must be established like 
any other fact. 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 E 
and the guilt of the person charged of an offence, many 
a time is so inter-connected that one cannot be separated 
from the other.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.