20 MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE fact that the body of the murdered man is not found is not a sufficient reason for not awarding capital sentence.1 1. In the case of K. E. v. Nazir, resident of Kosi Kalan, District Mut'tra, the body of the victim, Chanda, was not forthcoming, and yet the Sessions Judge relying on the strong evidence against the accused found him guilty of an offence unler section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to death. It was alleged that the accused after shooting Chanda in the back carried the body to the neighbouring canal, where it was dismembered with a sword and thrown into the running stream. Some of the articles recovered from the house of the accused were found to be stained with human blood by the Imperial Sero- logist, who also found such stains on a piece of mud and a piece of bone and flesh found on the canal bank.—Allahabad High Court Cr. Appeal, No. 610 of 1923. 2. One Behari had been convicted and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge of Etah on a charge of having murdered his cousin, Lankush. The prosecution story disclosed that the deceased, at about sunset on the evening of the 3rd of September 1923, went out of his house, wearing a pair of wooden slippers and an angaucha on his head and was carrying a lota in one hand and a lathi in the other. As Lankush did not return for a long time, his wife and other relations went in search of him but returned disappointed, and Lankush was missed the whole night. The next morning one Musam- mat Nasiban informed the Mukhia, that she had heard at night the cry of a man as if he was being murdered and a search was instituted at the spot and some blood marks were discovered, which were being obliterated by Behari accused's mother. The matter was reported to the police and a suspicion at once fell on the accused who bore a long- standing enmity against the deceased, and who handed over a gandasa stained with blood and lota, belonging to the deceased. The deceased's body was never discovered and it was believed that after murder the body was thrown into the Ganges. The accused also made a confession in which he admitted having killed the deceased. The confession was subsequently retracted and the accused pleaded not guilty. In the appeal preferred by the accused before the High Court Their Lordships confirmed the sentence.—Leader, December 22, 1923. 3. In a criminal appeal of the accused who had been convicted and sentenced to^ death for the murder of one Giri Gowda by the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore division the learned judges of the Madras High Court held that the absence of corpus delicti is mt a ground for refusing to convict the accused of murder, if the facts of the case are proved beyond any reasonable doubt. In this case the deceased was brutally stabbed and beaten *at one place after being dragged out of the Jutka just after dusk on October 23, 1948. He was carried away by the two accused and others to another locality not far from the original scene of the assault and there was also stabbed and beateba. As a result of this the deceased expired. After some time the accused exclaimed that the deceased was dead and that they should carry him away. Hence the body was carried away* from the scene of crime and later on has not been heard of at all. Accepting this evi- dence the learned judges confirmed the conviction of the accused but reduced the sentence to transportation for life.—51 Cr. Law Jour., Sept. 1950, p. 1068. It will thus be seen that identification may be required of a living person, of a dead body, of fragmentary remains, or of bones only. The following points are usually noted for the purposes of identi- fication : — * 1. Race. 11. Occupation marks. *2. Sex. 12. Handwriting. J 3. Age. 13. Clothes and ornaments. 4. Complexion and features. 14. Speech and voice. 5. Hair. 15. Gait. * 6. Anthropometry. 16. Tricks of manner and habit 7. Footprints. 17. Mental power, memory and education. 8. Deformities. 18. Dr. Sreenivas's new method of identification. 9. Scars. 19. Amount of illumination rer quired for identification, m Tattoo-marks. 1, Kmg Emperor v. Bamn&tk ali&s Nattha^ Criminal Appeal No. 702 of 1925; 27 L&w Journal* April 1926, p. 460.