REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1526 OF 2008
State of Rajasthan … Appellant
Versus
Ramesh …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Prafulla C. Pant,J.
This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 04.01.2006,
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, whereby
said Court has allowed D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 397 of 2000, and set
aside the conviction and sentence recorded against respondent Ramesh by
Sessions Judge, Jaipur, under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code
(IPC), and acquitted him of the charge.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that PW-1 Prithviraj Singh gave a
telephonic information on 28.04.1999 at about 10.55 p.m. to PW-7 Bhagwan
Singh, Station House Officer of Police Station Kalwad that Sheela, eldest
daughter of his servant Ramesh (respondent) has committed suicide by
hanging. The Station House Officer rushed to the spot. He made enquiries
from Ramesh in the farm house where he used to work, and lived with his
three daughters. He (Ramesh) told the Station House Officer that his
daughter went out of the farm house at about 8.30 p.m. and came back after
some time. Ramesh further told that he objected to his daughter’s conduct
of meeting PW-9 Bablu, and scolded her. Thereafter power went off. He
further told the Station House Officer that after some time when generator
was started, he saw that Sheela has hanged herself. The knot was opened
and the body was brought down. The Station House Officer mentioned these
facts in the report/marg No. 7/99 prepared under Section 174 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC). He prepared site plan, took dead body in his
possession, and got prepared inquest report (Ex. P-1) in the early hours of
29.04.1999. He directed PW-11 Assistant Sub Inspector Maliram to make
further inquiries under Section 174 CrPC. The Assistant Sub Inspector,
after recording the statements of Ramesh and other witnesses present there,
gave report on 30.04.1999, on the basis of which First Information Report
(Ex. P-11) was registered as Crime No. 63/99 relating to offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The Station House Officer
himself took up the investigation. Meanwhile, autopsy was conducted on
29.04.1999 on the dead body of Sheela by PW-8 Dr. Viveka Nand of S.M.S.
Hospital, Jaipur, at the request of the police, who found following ante
mortem injuries: -
“External injuries seen at the time of P.M. Examination
(i) Abrasion 1.5 cm x ½ cm on area 2 cm below middle of the right
mandibular rim on right side upper neck.
(ii) Abrasion ½ cm x ¼ cm on right side neck in middle/3
(iii) Abrasion 1 cm x ¼ cm on lateral half of right clavicle.
(iv) Abrasion 1.25 cm x ¼ cm on suprasternal notch.
(v) Abrasion 1/6 cm on area just below right side lower lip.
(vi) Abrasion ½ cm x ¼ cm on area just above right angel of mouth.
(vii) Three linear abrasions each of size 1 cm x ¼ cm parallel to each
other on area just above right angle of mouth on right side face.
(viii) Abrasion 2 cm x ¼ cm just above right elbow on right arm
dorsally.
(ix) Abrasion 2 cm in length linear x skin deep vertical on right palm
below bone of right middle finger.
(x) Abrasion ¼ x 1/6 cm on left medial melleolus.
(xi) Abrasion ¼ cm x 1/6 cm on area below left medial melleolus on left
foot.
(xii) Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm on dorsing right forearm upper/3.
Neck dissection – on dissection of neck there is haematoma c (with) tissue
staining found at following places red in colour antemortem in nature c
effusions extravessation of blood
Left lateral side of trachea upper/3 size ¼ x ¼ cm.
Left lateral side of trachea middle/3 size ¼ x ¼ cm.
Left lateral side of trachea middle/3 on area ¼ cm below above injury size
¼ x ¼ cm.
Right side front of neck underneath ext. injury No. 1 on antero lateral of
trachea upper 1/3 size 1 cm x ½ cm above the level of hyridbone.
Further examination shows (trachea) congested areas in trachea c fine white
froath. There is haematoma of soft tissues near upper part of tachea over
right side neck in middle/3. Upper part – left side neck also show such
haemotoma in an area of 2 cm x ½ cm on left side neck. There was froathy
blood which came out through upper respiratory tract c fine froath when
trachea was removed.”
The Medical Officer (PW-8) gave following opinion at the end of the
post mortem report (Ex. P-12): -
“Opinion
The cause of death is asphyxia as the result of injuries of the neck
region as mentioned. All are ante mortem injuries. ………”
3. During investigation, the Investigating Officer interrogated
witnesses, arrested the accused (Ramesh), and on its conclusion, submitted
charge sheet against him for his trial in respect of offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
4. It appears that after giving necessary copies as required under
Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed by the Magistrate to the Court
of Sessions on 24.7.1999. The learned Sessions Judge registered Sessions
Case No. 76 of 1999, and after hearing the parties, on 11.10.1999, framed
charge of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against
accused/respondent Ramesh, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
5. On this, prosecution got examined PW-1 Prithviraj Singh, (informant),
PW-2 Om Prakash, PW-3 Ram Singh (both witnesses of inquest report), PW-4
Raju (witness of the fact that Ramesh slapped Sheela about half an hour
before the incident), PW-5 Amba Lal (witness of arresting memo), PW-6
Constable Devinder Singh (formal witness), PW-7 S.I. Bhagwan Singh
(Investigating Officer), PW-8, Dr. Viveka Nand (who conducted post mortem
examination), PW-9 Bablu (the boy with whom the deceased said to had a
friendship), PW-10 Meela (minor daughter of accused/sister of the
deceased), and PW-11 A.S.I. Mali Ram.
6. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under
Section 313 CrPC, in reply to which he admitted that his daughter Sheela
died on 28.4.1999 at about 9.00 p.m. He also told that the inquest report
and memorandum of recovery of Chunni/Dupatta of the deceased etc. were
prepared. He further admitted that he did scold his daughter Sheela
(deceased) as stated by PW-3 Ram Singh about twenty minutes before her
death. As to the rest of the evidence, he denied the same as incorrect.
At the end of his statement under Section 313 CrPC the accused stated that
after generator started, he saw his daughter (Sheela) hanging from a hook
of wooden beam (Balli). He further stated that when knot was loosened, she
was alive. He stated that the deceased was given some water and when
attempt was made to take her to hospital, she died. As to the fact that
the deceased was given water, as stated by the accused, or that she died on
her way to the hospital, there is nothing on the record to support the
same.
7. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found accused/ respondent
Ramesh guilty of the charge, and convicted and sentenced him under Section
302 IPC to imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-,
in default of which he was required to undergo one year’s rigorous
imprisonment. The respondent was further convicted and sentenced under
Section 201 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and
directed to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of which he was
required to undergo further three months’ rigorous imprisonment.
8. Against said judgment and order dated 17.6.2000, passed by the
Sessions Judge, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 76 of 1999, appeal (D.B.
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 397 of 2000) was filed by the convict before the
High Court. The High Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal
and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court
holding that the chain of circumstances as against the convict was not
complete to come to the irresistible conclusion that the accused-respondent
committed murder of his daughter. Said order of the High Court is
challenged before us by the State.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
original record of the case.
10. It is an admitted fact on record that Sheela, daughter of the accused-
respondent, died on 28.4.1999, as is apparent from the statement of accused
recorded under Section 313 CrPC read with the prosecution evidence,
discussed above. Death of Sheela was not natural is also admitted fact,
and established on record, for the reason that where the prosecution case
is that she died due to asphyxia by strangulation and throttling, the
version of the defence is that she died by hanging. In an appeal against
acquittal we have to examine the evidence on record to find out whether
prosecution has successfully proved or not that the accused/respondent
caused homicidal death of Sheela, as suggested by it, and also as to
whether two views – one taken by the trial court and another by the High
Court – were possible in the present case or not as to the cause of death
of the deceased.
11. We have already quoted above the ante mortem injuries recorded in the
autopsy report by PW-8 Dr. Viveka Nand. We have also reproduced the
opinion given by him at the end of the autopsy report as to the cause of
death. PW-8 has stated in his report (Ex.P-12) dated 29.4.1999 that the
deceased died of Asphyxia as a result of injuries on the neck region, but
he did not mention as to whether it was asphyxia due to strangulation or
hanging. But in his oral testimony he has stated that the deceased had
died due to injuries around her neck and suffocation. He has further
stated that on 19.5.1999 in response to letter No. 1490 dated 3.5.1999 of
Station House Officer, Kalwad, he gave following reply to him: -
“After going through above mentioned post mortem report it is clear
that there was no ligature mark around the neck.
Hence it is clarified that the above mentioned person did not die
because of hanging. She died because of asphyxia as the result of pressure
over neck.”
This report is exhibited as P-13 on the record proved by the Medical
Officer (PW-8) during his examination. There is no suggestion in the cross-
examination to PW-8 Dr. Viveka Nand that cause of death could have been
asphyxia due to hanging.
12. It is argued on behalf of the respondent that since the deceased
committed suicide by hanging herself with a Chunni/Dupatta, and her body
was brought down immediately after the incident, as such, no ligature mark
was found around the neck, and it is a case of suicide by hanging.
13. Hanging is a form of death, produced by suspending the body with a
ligature round the neck, the constricting force being the weight of the
body, or a part of the body weight. In other words, the hanging is the
ligature compression of the neck by the weight of one’s body due to
suspension.
14. According to Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (23rd
Edition), “ligature mark depends on the nature and position of ligature
used, and the time of suspension of the body after death. If the ligature
is soft, and the body is cut down from the ligature immediately after the
death, there may be no mark…….”
15. ‘Strangulation’ is defined by Modi as “the compression of the neck by
a force other than hanging. Weight of the body has nothing to do with
strangulation. Ligature strangulation is a violent form of death which
results from constricting the neck by means of a ligature or by any other
means without suspending the body. When constriction is produced by the
pressure of the fingers and palms upon the throat, it is called as
throttling. When strangulation is brought about by compressing the throat
with a foot, knee, bend of elbow, or some other solid substances, it is
known as mugging (strangle hold).” (emphasis supplied)
16. As to appearances due to asphyxia, Modi says: -
“The face is puffy and cyanosed, and marked with petechiae. The eyes are
prominent and open. In some cases, they may be closed. The conjunctivae
are congested and the pupils are dilated. Petechiae are seen in the
eyelids and the conjunctivae. The lips are blue. Bloody foam escapes from
the mouth and nostrils, and sometimes, pure blood issues from the mouth,
nose and ears, especially if great violence has been used. The tongue is
often swollen, bruised, protruding and dark in colour, showing patches of
extravasation and occasionally bitten by the teeth. There may be evidence
of bruising at the back of the neck. The hands are usually clenched. The
genital organs may be congested and there may be discharge of urine, faeces
and seminal fluid.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. In ‘asphyxia’, according to Modi, “ligature is usually situated above
the thyroid cartilage, and the effect of its pressing the neck in that
situation is to force up the epiglottis and the root of the tongue against
the posterior wall of the pharynx. Hence, the floor of the mouth is jammed
against its roof, and occludes the air passages,………..”
18. In the light of above, we have examined the observations of PW-8 Dr.
Viveka Nand in the autopsy report (Ex. P-12), prepared by him at the time
of post mortem examination. We have already quoted above the ante mortem
injuries and findings on the neck dissection and also the opinion given by
the Medical Officer. At this stage, we think it relevant to mention here
the observations made by the Medical Officer (PW-8) as to external
appearances mentioned in page one of the post mortem report, which disclose
–
“Both eyes were semi open and looked like protruded, on opening eyes are
reddish congested, mouth closed, lips and face along with nails show bluish
discolouration, abdomen slightly distended, condition of pupils – both
dilated”.
(emphasis supplied)
19. After carefully going through the medico legal evidence on record, we
are of the opinion that it was not a case where a view could have been
taken that the deceased died of hanging. There was no reason to disagree
with the opinion given by PW-8 Dr. Viveka Nand (Ex. P-13) that the deceased
had died of asphyxia as a result of pressure over the neck. Though PW-10
Meela (minor daughter of the accused) has stated that her elder sister’s
body was found hanging, but this witness was got declared hostile by the
prosecution, and trial court rightly disbelieved her statement, for the
reason that after losing her elder sister, she was not in a position to
lose her father.
20. We think it pertinent to refer here to the statement of PW-9 Bablu,
who has stated that he knew Sheela (deceased) and they wanted to marry. He
further told that on 28.4.1999 between 8.00 to 8.15 p.m. he was talking
with Sheela near the well. He further told that accused Ramesh came there
and threatened him of breaking his bones if he continued to meet Sheela.
The witness further narrated that Ramesh slapped Sheela. He further told
that Ramesh took Sheela to the house and thereafter he did not know what
happened, but at 10.30 p.m. he came to know about the death of Sheela.
21. PW-4 Raju has corroborated the above statement. He stated that he
heard some noise on 28.4.1999 at 8.15 p.m. on his way back from the field.
He further told that when he reached near well, he saw Sheela and Bablu
talking and advised them to go to their respective homes. Meanwhile
accused Ramesh came and slapped his daughter Sheela and took her to his
house. He further told that he did not know what had happened thereafter,
but at about 10.30 p.m. PW-1 Prithviraj Singh called him and Bablu.
Meanwhile, the police also reached there.
22. After carefully scrutinizing the evidence on record, as above, we are
convinced that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt on the record that when
accused Ramesh saw his daughter talking to PW-9 Bablu, he got suddenly
provoked and lost his power of self-control, slapped her, took her inside
the house, and caused death of his daughter by strangulation and
throttling. The medical evidence clearly shows four ante mortem injuries
on the neck region and three around mouth of the deceased as mentioned in
the autopsy report (Ex. P-12). On going through the reports Ex. P-12 and
P.13 read with oral testimony of witnesses, discussed above, we have no
hesitation in holding that prosecution has successfully proved the charge
of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304
Part I against the accused/respondent Ramesh.
23. Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC provides that a culpable homicide is
not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by
grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the
provocation. Needless to say that following three conditions, as required
under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, are also fulfilled in the present
case: -
that the provocation was not sought or voluntarily provoked by the
offender;
that the provocation was not given by anything done in obedience of the
law; and
that the provocation was not given by anything done in lawful exercise of
the right of private defence.
24. For the reasons, as discussed above, we are of the view that the High
Court has erred in law in holding that the deceased could have hanged
herself, and that the chain of circumstances was not complete against the
accused. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the
appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment and order dated 4.1.2006,
passed by the High Court in D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 397 of 2000, is
set aside. Accused-respondent Ramesh is convicted under Section 304 Part I
IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The period of
sentence already undergone by the accused shall be set off. His conviction
and sentence recorded by the trial court shall stand modified accordingly.
25. The lower court record be sent back to make the respondent serve out
the remaining part of sentence.
………………….....…………J.
[S.A. Bobde]
.………………….……………J.
[Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi;
November 20, 2015.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1526 OF 2008
State of Rajasthan … Appellant
Versus
Ramesh …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Prafulla C. Pant,J.
This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 04.01.2006,
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, whereby
said Court has allowed D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 397 of 2000, and set
aside the conviction and sentence recorded against respondent Ramesh by
Sessions Judge, Jaipur, under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code
(IPC), and acquitted him of the charge.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that PW-1 Prithviraj Singh gave a
telephonic information on 28.04.1999 at about 10.55 p.m. to PW-7 Bhagwan
Singh, Station House Officer of Police Station Kalwad that Sheela, eldest
daughter of his servant Ramesh (respondent) has committed suicide by
hanging. The Station House Officer rushed to the spot. He made enquiries
from Ramesh in the farm house where he used to work, and lived with his
three daughters. He (Ramesh) told the Station House Officer that his
daughter went out of the farm house at about 8.30 p.m. and came back after
some time. Ramesh further told that he objected to his daughter’s conduct
of meeting PW-9 Bablu, and scolded her. Thereafter power went off. He
further told the Station House Officer that after some time when generator
was started, he saw that Sheela has hanged herself. The knot was opened
and the body was brought down. The Station House Officer mentioned these
facts in the report/marg No. 7/99 prepared under Section 174 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC). He prepared site plan, took dead body in his
possession, and got prepared inquest report (Ex. P-1) in the early hours of
29.04.1999. He directed PW-11 Assistant Sub Inspector Maliram to make
further inquiries under Section 174 CrPC. The Assistant Sub Inspector,
after recording the statements of Ramesh and other witnesses present there,
gave report on 30.04.1999, on the basis of which First Information Report
(Ex. P-11) was registered as Crime No. 63/99 relating to offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The Station House Officer
himself took up the investigation. Meanwhile, autopsy was conducted on
29.04.1999 on the dead body of Sheela by PW-8 Dr. Viveka Nand of S.M.S.
Hospital, Jaipur, at the request of the police, who found following ante
mortem injuries: -
“External injuries seen at the time of P.M. Examination
(i) Abrasion 1.5 cm x ½ cm on area 2 cm below middle of the right
mandibular rim on right side upper neck.
(ii) Abrasion ½ cm x ¼ cm on right side neck in middle/3
(iii) Abrasion 1 cm x ¼ cm on lateral half of right clavicle.
(iv) Abrasion 1.25 cm x ¼ cm on suprasternal notch.
(v) Abrasion 1/6 cm on area just below right side lower lip.
(vi) Abrasion ½ cm x ¼ cm on area just above right angel of mouth.
(vii) Three linear abrasions each of size 1 cm x ¼ cm parallel to each
other on area just above right angle of mouth on right side face.
(viii) Abrasion 2 cm x ¼ cm just above right elbow on right arm
dorsally.
(ix) Abrasion 2 cm in length linear x skin deep vertical on right palm
below bone of right middle finger.
(x) Abrasion ¼ x 1/6 cm on left medial melleolus.
(xi) Abrasion ¼ cm x 1/6 cm on area below left medial melleolus on left
foot.
(xii) Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm on dorsing right forearm upper/3.
Neck dissection – on dissection of neck there is haematoma c (with) tissue
staining found at following places red in colour antemortem in nature c
effusions extravessation of blood
Left lateral side of trachea upper/3 size ¼ x ¼ cm.
Left lateral side of trachea middle/3 size ¼ x ¼ cm.
Left lateral side of trachea middle/3 on area ¼ cm below above injury size
¼ x ¼ cm.
Right side front of neck underneath ext. injury No. 1 on antero lateral of
trachea upper 1/3 size 1 cm x ½ cm above the level of hyridbone.
Further examination shows (trachea) congested areas in trachea c fine white
froath. There is haematoma of soft tissues near upper part of tachea over
right side neck in middle/3. Upper part – left side neck also show such
haemotoma in an area of 2 cm x ½ cm on left side neck. There was froathy
blood which came out through upper respiratory tract c fine froath when
trachea was removed.”
The Medical Officer (PW-8) gave following opinion at the end of the
post mortem report (Ex. P-12): -
“Opinion
The cause of death is asphyxia as the result of injuries of the neck
region as mentioned. All are ante mortem injuries. ………”
3. During investigation, the Investigating Officer interrogated
witnesses, arrested the accused (Ramesh), and on its conclusion, submitted
charge sheet against him for his trial in respect of offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
4. It appears that after giving necessary copies as required under
Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed by the Magistrate to the Court
of Sessions on 24.7.1999. The learned Sessions Judge registered Sessions
Case No. 76 of 1999, and after hearing the parties, on 11.10.1999, framed
charge of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against
accused/respondent Ramesh, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
5. On this, prosecution got examined PW-1 Prithviraj Singh, (informant),
PW-2 Om Prakash, PW-3 Ram Singh (both witnesses of inquest report), PW-4
Raju (witness of the fact that Ramesh slapped Sheela about half an hour
before the incident), PW-5 Amba Lal (witness of arresting memo), PW-6
Constable Devinder Singh (formal witness), PW-7 S.I. Bhagwan Singh
(Investigating Officer), PW-8, Dr. Viveka Nand (who conducted post mortem
examination), PW-9 Bablu (the boy with whom the deceased said to had a
friendship), PW-10 Meela (minor daughter of accused/sister of the
deceased), and PW-11 A.S.I. Mali Ram.
6. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under
Section 313 CrPC, in reply to which he admitted that his daughter Sheela
died on 28.4.1999 at about 9.00 p.m. He also told that the inquest report
and memorandum of recovery of Chunni/Dupatta of the deceased etc. were
prepared. He further admitted that he did scold his daughter Sheela
(deceased) as stated by PW-3 Ram Singh about twenty minutes before her
death. As to the rest of the evidence, he denied the same as incorrect.
At the end of his statement under Section 313 CrPC the accused stated that
after generator started, he saw his daughter (Sheela) hanging from a hook
of wooden beam (Balli). He further stated that when knot was loosened, she
was alive. He stated that the deceased was given some water and when
attempt was made to take her to hospital, she died. As to the fact that
the deceased was given water, as stated by the accused, or that she died on
her way to the hospital, there is nothing on the record to support the
same.
7. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found accused/ respondent
Ramesh guilty of the charge, and convicted and sentenced him under Section
302 IPC to imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-,
in default of which he was required to undergo one year’s rigorous
imprisonment. The respondent was further convicted and sentenced under
Section 201 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and
directed to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of which he was
required to undergo further three months’ rigorous imprisonment.
8. Against said judgment and order dated 17.6.2000, passed by the
Sessions Judge, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 76 of 1999, appeal (D.B.
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 397 of 2000) was filed by the convict before the
High Court. The High Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal
and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court
holding that the chain of circumstances as against the convict was not
complete to come to the irresistible conclusion that the accused-respondent
committed murder of his daughter. Said order of the High Court is
challenged before us by the State.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
original record of the case.
10. It is an admitted fact on record that Sheela, daughter of the accused-
respondent, died on 28.4.1999, as is apparent from the statement of accused
recorded under Section 313 CrPC read with the prosecution evidence,
discussed above. Death of Sheela was not natural is also admitted fact,
and established on record, for the reason that where the prosecution case
is that she died due to asphyxia by strangulation and throttling, the
version of the defence is that she died by hanging. In an appeal against
acquittal we have to examine the evidence on record to find out whether
prosecution has successfully proved or not that the accused/respondent
caused homicidal death of Sheela, as suggested by it, and also as to
whether two views – one taken by the trial court and another by the High
Court – were possible in the present case or not as to the cause of death
of the deceased.
11. We have already quoted above the ante mortem injuries recorded in the
autopsy report by PW-8 Dr. Viveka Nand. We have also reproduced the
opinion given by him at the end of the autopsy report as to the cause of
death. PW-8 has stated in his report (Ex.P-12) dated 29.4.1999 that the
deceased died of Asphyxia as a result of injuries on the neck region, but
he did not mention as to whether it was asphyxia due to strangulation or
hanging. But in his oral testimony he has stated that the deceased had
died due to injuries around her neck and suffocation. He has further
stated that on 19.5.1999 in response to letter No. 1490 dated 3.5.1999 of
Station House Officer, Kalwad, he gave following reply to him: -
“After going through above mentioned post mortem report it is clear
that there was no ligature mark around the neck.
Hence it is clarified that the above mentioned person did not die
because of hanging. She died because of asphyxia as the result of pressure
over neck.”
This report is exhibited as P-13 on the record proved by the Medical
Officer (PW-8) during his examination. There is no suggestion in the cross-
examination to PW-8 Dr. Viveka Nand that cause of death could have been
asphyxia due to hanging.
12. It is argued on behalf of the respondent that since the deceased
committed suicide by hanging herself with a Chunni/Dupatta, and her body
was brought down immediately after the incident, as such, no ligature mark
was found around the neck, and it is a case of suicide by hanging.
13. Hanging is a form of death, produced by suspending the body with a
ligature round the neck, the constricting force being the weight of the
body, or a part of the body weight. In other words, the hanging is the
ligature compression of the neck by the weight of one’s body due to
suspension.
14. According to Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (23rd
Edition), “ligature mark depends on the nature and position of ligature
used, and the time of suspension of the body after death. If the ligature
is soft, and the body is cut down from the ligature immediately after the
death, there may be no mark…….”
15. ‘Strangulation’ is defined by Modi as “the compression of the neck by
a force other than hanging. Weight of the body has nothing to do with
strangulation. Ligature strangulation is a violent form of death which
results from constricting the neck by means of a ligature or by any other
means without suspending the body. When constriction is produced by the
pressure of the fingers and palms upon the throat, it is called as
throttling. When strangulation is brought about by compressing the throat
with a foot, knee, bend of elbow, or some other solid substances, it is
known as mugging (strangle hold).” (emphasis supplied)
16. As to appearances due to asphyxia, Modi says: -
“The face is puffy and cyanosed, and marked with petechiae. The eyes are
prominent and open. In some cases, they may be closed. The conjunctivae
are congested and the pupils are dilated. Petechiae are seen in the
eyelids and the conjunctivae. The lips are blue. Bloody foam escapes from
the mouth and nostrils, and sometimes, pure blood issues from the mouth,
nose and ears, especially if great violence has been used. The tongue is
often swollen, bruised, protruding and dark in colour, showing patches of
extravasation and occasionally bitten by the teeth. There may be evidence
of bruising at the back of the neck. The hands are usually clenched. The
genital organs may be congested and there may be discharge of urine, faeces
and seminal fluid.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. In ‘asphyxia’, according to Modi, “ligature is usually situated above
the thyroid cartilage, and the effect of its pressing the neck in that
situation is to force up the epiglottis and the root of the tongue against
the posterior wall of the pharynx. Hence, the floor of the mouth is jammed
against its roof, and occludes the air passages,………..”
18. In the light of above, we have examined the observations of PW-8 Dr.
Viveka Nand in the autopsy report (Ex. P-12), prepared by him at the time
of post mortem examination. We have already quoted above the ante mortem
injuries and findings on the neck dissection and also the opinion given by
the Medical Officer. At this stage, we think it relevant to mention here
the observations made by the Medical Officer (PW-8) as to external
appearances mentioned in page one of the post mortem report, which disclose
–
“Both eyes were semi open and looked like protruded, on opening eyes are
reddish congested, mouth closed, lips and face along with nails show bluish
discolouration, abdomen slightly distended, condition of pupils – both
dilated”.
(emphasis supplied)
19. After carefully going through the medico legal evidence on record, we
are of the opinion that it was not a case where a view could have been
taken that the deceased died of hanging. There was no reason to disagree
with the opinion given by PW-8 Dr. Viveka Nand (Ex. P-13) that the deceased
had died of asphyxia as a result of pressure over the neck. Though PW-10
Meela (minor daughter of the accused) has stated that her elder sister’s
body was found hanging, but this witness was got declared hostile by the
prosecution, and trial court rightly disbelieved her statement, for the
reason that after losing her elder sister, she was not in a position to
lose her father.
20. We think it pertinent to refer here to the statement of PW-9 Bablu,
who has stated that he knew Sheela (deceased) and they wanted to marry. He
further told that on 28.4.1999 between 8.00 to 8.15 p.m. he was talking
with Sheela near the well. He further told that accused Ramesh came there
and threatened him of breaking his bones if he continued to meet Sheela.
The witness further narrated that Ramesh slapped Sheela. He further told
that Ramesh took Sheela to the house and thereafter he did not know what
happened, but at 10.30 p.m. he came to know about the death of Sheela.
21. PW-4 Raju has corroborated the above statement. He stated that he
heard some noise on 28.4.1999 at 8.15 p.m. on his way back from the field.
He further told that when he reached near well, he saw Sheela and Bablu
talking and advised them to go to their respective homes. Meanwhile
accused Ramesh came and slapped his daughter Sheela and took her to his
house. He further told that he did not know what had happened thereafter,
but at about 10.30 p.m. PW-1 Prithviraj Singh called him and Bablu.
Meanwhile, the police also reached there.
22. After carefully scrutinizing the evidence on record, as above, we are
convinced that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt on the record that when
accused Ramesh saw his daughter talking to PW-9 Bablu, he got suddenly
provoked and lost his power of self-control, slapped her, took her inside
the house, and caused death of his daughter by strangulation and
throttling. The medical evidence clearly shows four ante mortem injuries
on the neck region and three around mouth of the deceased as mentioned in
the autopsy report (Ex. P-12). On going through the reports Ex. P-12 and
P.13 read with oral testimony of witnesses, discussed above, we have no
hesitation in holding that prosecution has successfully proved the charge
of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304
Part I against the accused/respondent Ramesh.
23. Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC provides that a culpable homicide is
not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by
grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the
provocation. Needless to say that following three conditions, as required
under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, are also fulfilled in the present
case: -
that the provocation was not sought or voluntarily provoked by the
offender;
that the provocation was not given by anything done in obedience of the
law; and
that the provocation was not given by anything done in lawful exercise of
the right of private defence.
24. For the reasons, as discussed above, we are of the view that the High
Court has erred in law in holding that the deceased could have hanged
herself, and that the chain of circumstances was not complete against the
accused. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the
appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment and order dated 4.1.2006,
passed by the High Court in D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 397 of 2000, is
set aside. Accused-respondent Ramesh is convicted under Section 304 Part I
IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The period of
sentence already undergone by the accused shall be set off. His conviction
and sentence recorded by the trial court shall stand modified accordingly.
25. The lower court record be sent back to make the respondent serve out
the remaining part of sentence.
………………….....…………J.
[S.A. Bobde]
.………………….……………J.
[Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi;
November 20, 2015.
