Corpus Delicti

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1)    The Latin term corpus delicti literally means “the body of the crime”. It was originally used to refer to the basic pieces of evidence that could verify that the crime had taken place when these pieces of evidence were viewed together.
2)    In the modern world, this principle is used to ensure that the government has enough evidence to prove that the essential parts of a crime occurred before they can even charge an individual with this crime.
3)    In many cases involving murder, courts held that the corpus delicti is not necessary to be established if there is circumstantial evidence that can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the said crime has occurred.

INTRODUCTION

Can a person be convicted if there is no proof that they have committed the crime? The general answer to this question would be in the negative. But what if such a crime never occurred in the first place? Can a person then be convicted? The term corpus delicti is the answer to this question. Whenever a person is accused of committing a crime, the proof that such a crime has taken place must first be brought forward.
If there is no proof that a crime has taken place, there lies no logic in charging a person of committing that crime. The plaintiff thus is liable to prove that the crime has taken place before the accused can be charged of committing it. This principle was born in the Western legal systems where in many jurisdictions, it was mandated that the proof of the crime must first be shown before the accused can be tried.
One of the most prominent areas where this principle can be used is in murder cases, where the body of the victim must be shown to prove that they have been killed. Without the physical body of the victim, it becomes harder albeit not impossible to prove that the crime has taken place. Circumstantial evidence could help prove the occurrence of the crime, although the physical body is a much more significant evidence in proving the same.

MEANING

This Latin phrase that literally means “the body of the crime” has its origins in Western Jurisprudence, where it was common practice of the government to punish individuals solely based on their confession without any actual proof of the occurrence of the crime. Most of the time, these confessions were false and driven by duress, meaning that innocent individuals were being convicted for a crime that did not even take place, which was gravely against the principles of natural justice.
Although it may be assumed from the literal meaning of “the body of the crime” that the object being referred to here is the corpse, in its original sense, corpus delicti was used to refer to the basic facts that when taken together, point towards the occurrence of the crime. Straying away from its original sense, this maxim is popularly used to refer to the actual physical body upon which the crime has been committed. Some examples that can used to understand the application of this maxim are given below:

1. If a person is accused of larceny, the corpus delicti would be the proof that the property has been stolen.
2. If a person is charged for the crime of arson, the corpus delicti would be the burned property or the material on which arson was attempted on.
3. In case of a murder, the corpus delicte would be the corpse of the victim.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS ON THIS PRINCIPLE

STATE V. NICELY (1988)

This was one of the most famous landmark judgements that held that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the occurrence of a murder and the conviction that follows. It was already held previously that murder can be proved without producing the corpse of the victim. But this judgment went on further to hold that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove the occurrence of a murder.
In this case, the defendant was accused of murdering their wife, whose corpse was never found. There was however, no scarcity of circumstantial evidence that pointed towards the murder of the victim, like the blood marks of the victim on her car, which itself was found abandoned on a bridge, along with a crowbar covered in the same blood. The conflicting statements of the defendant also added more fuel to the fire, resulting in the Supreme Court of Ohio reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals which held that circumstantial evidence would not suffice in proving a murder.

SEVAKA PERUMAL AND ANR. V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (1991)

This landmark Indian judgment established the precedent that a corpus delicti is not required to convict an individual. In this case, both the accused had murdered an individual whose corpse, although found, was not in a state to be accurately identified as theirs. This left room for doubt on the veracity of the claim that the victim has been murdered. This is when the Supreme Court intervened and held that corpus delicti is not a necessity to establish a murder as long as the death of the individual can be proved by other means. If the corpse of an individual is necessary to prove their murder, the perpetrators would make it a habit to keep the corpse hidden from the eyes of law, for instance by burying, burning, or throwing it into a flow of water. The Apex Court held that such practices would give the perpetrators complete immunity, something that is against the principles of justice. The Court took cognizance of the truth that as long as evidence exists to prove the death of the victim, be it circumstantial or direct, the corpus delicti was not necessary to be established.

EXCEPTIONS TO THIS PRINCIPLE

Although it might seem logical at first to establish the corpus delicti before convicting someone, when serious thought is put into this issue, one may realize that this principle is not really very  logical and practical, especially in the case of murder. If it was mandatory to establish the corpus delicti to begin a conviction, murderers would make it a habit to either hide the corpse or process it into a state where it can no longer be identified. Therefore, the courts held that if circumstantial evidence can prove that the murder has actually taken place, the corpus delicti is no longer required.
The murder trial of John Webster set the precedent in the US jurisprudence that a person can be convicted without absolute proof of corpus delicti if there is evidence to believe without any reasonable doubt that the murder has taken place. The important point to be kept in mind here is that the circumstantial evidence must prove beyond reasonable doubt the veracity of the claim of the murder.

CONCLUSION

The legal principle of corpus delicti was created at a time when false and forced confessions were the norm, which uprooted the very principles of natural justice. This principle was necessary to ensure justice at the time, but with the growth of jurisprudence, it was realized that it is not always possible to bring the evidence that points towards the commission of the crime. In such cases, if it was mandated that without the corpus delicti a conviction cannot be upheld, the perpetrators would work to ensure that the corpus delicti will never be found.
This is when the courts took cognizance of the truth that as long as circumstantial evidence pointing towards the commission of the crime exists, the corpus delicti is not necessary to be established. Such circumstantial evidence must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the crime has been committed to avoid the need for the corpus delicti to be established. Sevaka Perumal and Anr. v. State of Tamilnadu (1991) was the Supreme Court judgment that established this fact in India. Although such an exception exists, this principle is still very much valid and should be enforced wherever possible to ensure that the principles of justice are upheld.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. How was the principle of corpus delicti created?
   ANS: The principle of corpus delicti was created when there was an increase in the cases of innocent people who were forced to confess to a crime that never took place were being convicted. When it was realized that justice was being violated to its very core, Western Legal Systems made it necessary to establish proof of the crime before proceeding with the trial.
2. Was corpus delicti originally used to refer to the corpse in a murder case?
   ANS: Corpus delicti was originally used to refer to the basic facts or evidence, that when viewed together, pointed towards the occurrence of the crime. However, this principle is now popularly used to refer to the physical body of evidence upon which the crime was committed.
3. If an individual is accused of larceny, what would be the corpus delicti according to this principle?
   ANS: In the case of larceny, the corpus delicti would be the proof that the property has been stolen. The meaning of this principle is “the body of the crime”, which is used to refer to the proof of actual occurrence of the crime.
4. How is this principle used in modern practice?
   ANS: In modern use, this principle necessitates that the evidence of commission of crime is required before they can even be charged for a crime.
5. Does the principle of corpus delicti need to be established in murder cases to convict the accused?
   ANS: In murder cases, if it was mandatory to establish the corpus delicti, murderers would start ensuring that the corpse of the victim cannot be found in any way so as to escape conviction. When Courts began to realize this, they directed that as long as circumstantial evidence towards the occurrence of the crimes exist that the same beyond reasonable doubt, the corpus delicti is not necessary.