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
8. Deformities. 18. Dr. Sreenivas's new method
9. Scars. 19. Amount of illumination rer
quired for identification,
1, Kmg Emperor v. Bamn&tk ali&s Nattha^ Criminal Appeal No. 702 of 1925; 27
L&w Journal* April 1926, p. 460.