$~R-25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 220/2012
Date of decision: 6th April, 2015
INDER PAL ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, Additional
Public Prosecutor.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
The appellant Inder Pal Singh challenges his conviciton for murder of his wife Sunita by the impugned judgment dated 20 th August, 2011 in Sessions Case No.117/2009 arising out of FIR No.394/2008, police station Kalkaji. By order on sentence dated 23rd August, 2011, the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been extended to him.
CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 1 of 23
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment is erroneous as this is a case of suicide and not murder or culpable homicide. In particular, reliance is placed upon the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as also the factum that the appellant had himself informed the police by making a call at number 100. Reference is also made to a document i.e. the complaint dated 13th July, 2007, which is a part of the trial court record.
3. We have considered the said contentions, but regret our inability to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. Laxmi (PW-15), mother of the deceased Sunita, in her deposition recorded on 14th December, 2009, has stated that the appellant had married her daughter about 17 years back and they had three children. About two years back, Sunita had claimed that she used to be beaten up by the appellant. Sunita had lodged a report with the police and had started residing with her. PW-15 used to financially help Sunita. The appellant had made allegations on the character of Sunita. In the legal proceedings, the Court had directed the appellant to pay maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to Sunita, but the appellant had refused to pay the said amount.
5. Luv-Kush (PW-16), brother of Sunita has made similar assertions. He has deposed that deceased Sunita had got married to the appellant Inder CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 2 of 23 Pal Singh on 22nd February, 1992, but soon after the marriage, the appellant started harassing Sunita. He used to give beatings and would ask Sunita to get money. He suspected her fidelity and because of this, they used to be quarrel. On 1st July, 2007, the appellant had beaten Sunita badly and PW- 16 made a report in this regard at Police Station Govind Puri. On 10th July, 2007, an attempt was made to reconcile and Sunita had gone back to her matrimonial home. However, the same night, Sunita was beaten up and compelled to return to her parental home. A case was registered by Sunita against the appellant. The appellant was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month, but the alimony/maintenance was not paid. On 11th August, 2008, Sunita had gone to attend a court hearing. There the appellant persuaded Sunita to accompany him to his residence at Govind Puri. Sunita did not come back thereafter. Luv-Kush (PW-16) had then made a call on the mobile phone of Sunita, which was picked up by a police officer, who informed him that his sister had committed suicide. PW-16 alleged that the appellant had earlier given threats to Sunita that he would kill her. In his cross-examination, PW-16 reiterated that he used to help Sunita financially. He, however, accepted that on 11 th August, 2008, he had not accompanied Sunita to the Court. He denied the suggestion that on 11th August, 2008, Sunita had committed suicide as she was unhappy with the court decision or she wanted to live with Ramesh and not with the CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 3 of 23 appellant. Similar suggestions were given to Laxmi (PW-15), who denied that her daughter Sunita had committed suicide. She has also denied the suggestion that Sunita had illicit relations with Ramesh, her other son-in- law.
6. On the question that there were matrimonial disputes between the appellant and the deceased Sunita, we have the deposition of Mohd. Mustaq, Ahlmad (PW-5), who had brought the records from the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, in a case filed by Sunita under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The said case was instituted on 26th February, 2008. Certified copy of the court proceedings were marked Ex.PW-5/A.
7. Equally relevant is the testimony of Kusum Sharma, Superintendent, Legal Aid, Gole Market, who had appeared as PW-6. She has deposed that on 25th July, 2008, the appellant had moved an application in the office of Delhi Legal Services Authority, Gole Market for amicable settlement of dispute with his wife Sunita. As per the records, on 11 th August, 2008, the deceased had visited the office of Delhi Legal Services Clinic, Gole Market. The appellant had agreed to pay arrears of maintenance by next month. The next date fixed was 22nd August, 2008. Subsequently, they learnt that Sunita had died.
CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 4 of 23
8. Umesh, son of the appellant and the deceased Sunita, who has deposed as PW-4, testified that on 11th August, 2008, he was present at his rented house at Madan Gir, New Delhi, where he used to reside with his mother Sunita. At about 6 P.M., he learnt about the death of his mother, who had been purportedly murdered by his father at Govind Puri. He affirmed that on 11th August, 2008, Sunita had gone to attend Lok Adalat from her maternal house but did not come back. The said witness had again appeared as PW-17 and had deposed on the similar lines. He has stated that his father used to doubt fidelity of his mother i.e. the deceased Sunita and that the appellant normally used to be under the influence of liquor.
9. It is clear from the aforesaid testimonies that there were disputes and differences between the deceased Sunita and her husband i.e. the present appellant. Deceased Sunita had moved out from her matrimonial home and was residing separately. She had made a police complaint and also initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. From the cross-examination of witnesses, it is apparent that the appellant suspected fidelity and character of his wife Sunita. On 11th August, 2008, deceased Sunita and the appellant Inder Pal Singh had attended Lok Adalat proceedings at Gole Market. Thereafter, Sunita did not return back to her parental home. Deceased Sunita, after the CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 5 of 23 proceedings had gone with the appellant to her matrimonial home. This finds support from the supplementary statement of the appellant under Section 311 Cr.P.C., made on 11 August 2008, wherein the appellant had accepted in answer to question no. 2 that the deceased Sunita had accompanied him to his house. There is also ample evidence to show that Sunita had died at her matrimonial home i.e. House No. B-334, Transit Camp, Govind Puri on 11th August, 2008 between 3.30 P.M. to 4 P.M.
10. Gokul Chandra Rai (PW-1) was running a medical clinic in the premises No.188, Transit Camp, Govid Puri. He had testified that at about 3.30/4.00 P.M., the appellant had come to his clinic and had asked him to accompany him to his residence for his wife had hanged herself. At that time, the appellant was crying and weeping. PW-1 went to the appellant‟s residence and found that that his wife was lying on the floor with half portion of a chunni around her neck. The other half portion of the chunni was tied on the iron angle on the roof. Tongue of the deceased Sunita was protruding outside and blood was oozing from her mouth. PW-1 informed the appellant that he cannot do anything as it was a police case and the deceased Sunita should be taken to the Safdarjung Hospital. The appellant had then informed that he had already called the police. He had examined Sunita and was of the view that she had expired. After sometime, police came to the spot. PW-1 accepted that that he did not notice any external CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 6 of 23 injury on the body of the deceased, but on court query, clarified that he had not checked or examined the entire body of the deceased. The deceased was wearing a salwar and kameez and he had not seen the covered part of the deceased‟s body and had hardly remained at the spot for 4-5 minutes.
11. Furkan, a neighbour of the appellant, has deposed as PW-2. He has stated that between 3-4 P.M., the appellant Inder Pal Singh was going in front of his house. PW-2 spoke to the appellant who informed him that his wife had committed suicide by hanging. PW-2 had then asked the appellant to take his wife to the hospital. Inder Pal Singh informed PW-2 that he had already made a call to the police at 100 number. PW-2 also made a call at police post Govind Puri. He was cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor on certain aspects, but we need not dilate and go into the said aspects.
12. The fact that the dead body of Sunita was found in her matrimonial home, where appellant was residing, is also established from the oral testimony of SI Balbir Singh (PW-14), Constable Anil Kumar (PW-19) and Inspector Joginder Kumar (PW-22). We would be referring to their testimonies but, at this stage, would only like to refer to the DD No.21 marked Ex.PW-13/A, which was recorded at 3.35 P.M. on 11th August, 2008 at police post Govind Puri, police station Kalkaji. The said DD entry was subsequently endorsed and became the mettle of the FIR in question CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 7 of 23 marked Ex.PW-9/A. The said DD entry records that the wireless operator had communicated that at House No.B-334, Transit Camp, Govind Puri, a person had informed that his wife had tried to commit suicide by hanging. The said DD was marked to ASI Balbir Singh (PW-14) and Constable Anil Kumar (PW-19). It is noticeable that the appellant does not dispute and in fact accepts that he had made the said call. He also does not dispute and accepts that the deceased had died an unnatural death at his residence i.e. House No.B-334, Transit Camp, Govind Puri on 11th August, 2008 between 3.30 P.M. to 4.00 P.M. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in response to question No.1 had accepted that he had given information to the police, which was recorded as DD No.21, marked Ex.PW13/A. The appellant as an alibi had asserted that he had informed the police that his wife had tried to commit suicide by hanging in his house. He also accepted as correct that he had moved an application before the Delhi Legal Services Committee on 25th July, 2008 and on 11th August, 2008 had visited the office of the said Committee at Gole Market, where his wife Sunita was also present. His response to question Nos.23, 24 and 25 as recorded on 4th May, 2011, read as under:-
"Q-23. Why this case against you?
Ans. It is a false case. My wife had run away with one Ramesh earlier. The said Ramesh along with my in-laws had planned to falsely implicate me in this case.
Q-24. Why PWs have deposed against you?CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 8 of 23
Ans. They have deposed falsely.
Q-25. Have you anything else to say?
Ans. I am innocent. The deceased was threatening to involve me in some case. I had gone to the PCO booth to inform this to the police. When I came back I found my wife hanging on the T-iron. I had cut the ligature and brought her body down and loosened the knot around her neck. Then I went to the Dr. Gokul to call him. When I came back with the Dr. Gokul at my house there was no injury on the person of my wife. I again went to the shop of STD to call the police but when I came back two police officers were already present at the door of the house. They did not allow me to enter the house and took me to the police post. Later on I was falsely implicated in this case."
13. The appellant made a supplementary statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 10th August, 2011 and his response to question Nos.1 and 2 recorded on the said date, was as under:-
"Ans. It is correct that I had levelled this allegation as I was convinced that Sunita was having a relation with Ramesh Chand. Even prior to the marriage of Ramesh Chand with my sister-in-law (sister of my wife Sunita), he had lived with my wife for about 7-8 months at some unknown place. I had gone to the police station Kalkaji and PP Govind Puri, but no complaint was lodged by the police.
Ans. I cannot say anything about the cause of death. On 11.08.2008, I along with my wife had come to my house at Govind Puri and she was getting repeated call on her mobile phone. Despite my asking, she did not tell who was giving her the call. At home, she had picked up an iron pipe and started hitting herself on her legs. I asked her why she was doing this and she said that she would implicate me in some case. I had gone out of the STD booth to give a call to the police. I came back within 10 minutes and saw my CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 9 of 23 wife Sunita hanging. I cannot say anything about the ligature strangulation."
14. Answer to question No.1 quoted above affirms the motive for murder and the cause of dispute as per the appellant. The appellant had levelled allegations against the deceased Sunita and suspected illicit relationship of his wife with Ramesh Chand, her brother-in-law. Appellant has stated that he had made a complaint to the police station Kalkaji in this regard. The said Ramesh Chand had appeared and deposed as PW-8. He has stated that he was married to the sister of the deceased Sunita, but denied having any illicit relationship with the deceased Sunita. In fact, he claimed that he was close to the appellant and had become friendly with him. Thereafter, he got married to the sister of the deceased Sunita. He denied the suggestion that he had any illicit relationship with deceased Sunita or that was the reason why the appellant had been implicated.
15. As already noticed, the moot and core issue in the present case is whether the deceased Sunita had committed suicide in her matrimonial home or suffered a homicidal death amounting to murder at the hands of the appellant. In order to decide the said question, we have examined the post mortem report marked Ex.PW-3/A and the deposition of Dr. Akhilesh Raj Jhamad (PW-3), who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sunita on 13th August, 2008. PW-3 has deposed that at CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 10 of 23 the time of conducting the post mortem examination, the following external ante mortem injuries were noticed:-
"1. lacerated wound over right side of occipital region of head of 3 X 1 cm with contused margin present. It is 9 cm from right mastoid tip.
2. Two incomplete ligature mark visible over the lower one third of the neck. The length of upper ligature mark is 7.5 cm and that of lower ligature mark is 8 cm. Both ligature marks were reddish brown in colour. Width of upper ligature mark is 2 cm and lower ligature mark is 1 cm. The distance between two ligature mark is 2 cm. The upper ligature mark is 10 cm from chin and 5 cm from suprasternal angle 8 cm from chin and 10 cm from the suprasternal angle. The distance from right mastoid tip is 7 cm for upper ligature mark and 7cm from lower ligature mark. From left mastoid tip it is 7 cm. The neck circumference is 30 cm. A pressure abrasion of 2 X 2 cm is present on chin.
3. An incised looking lacerated wound over right shin (on court query the witness explains that it is the front portion of the leg below the knee) present 2 X 2 cm. It is 4 cm below the right knee joint.
4. Three incised looking lacerated wound of size 1 X 1 cm each present over the left shin vertical. Upper one is 5 cm from left knee joint. Middle one 5 cm below the upper lacerated wound. Lower one is 11 cm below the middle lacerated wound and lower lacerated wound is 12 cm from left angle joint.
16. He has also testified that the ligature material, which was a printed chunni, was blood stained and was present around the neck in two rounds and a knot was present on the back. The knot was fixed in type with a width of 2 cm and a length of 64 cm. The clothes of the deceased were CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 11 of 23 blood stained and the cuts present on the salwar of the deceased corresponded with the left leg injuries. On the question of cause of death, Dr. Akhilesh Raj Jhamad (PW-3) testified and elucidated:-
"Cut section of neck shows extra vasation of blood on both side of the neck underneath both platysma sternomastoid pre dominantly on left side. Thyroid and hyoid bones are fractured with hemotoma present around it. The tracheal mucosa congested.
Opinion:- The cause of death in this case is asphyxia due to ligature strangulation, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All injuries are ante mortem in nature. Time since death was about two days.
17. The post mortem report marked Ex.PW-3/A records that the deceased was 32 years of age and 5‟1" in height. She had a medium built. Under the column "brief history as per the inquest papers including FIR/DD etc.", alleged history of hanging at 3.35 P.M. on 11 th August, 2008 at B-334, Transit Camp, New Delhi, Kalkaji has been mentioned. The said post mortem report was conducted on 13th August, 2008 between 12.30 P.M. to 1.30 P.M. It is only after the post-mortem report marked Exhibit PW 3/A as to the cause of death was received, that the appellant was arrested on 17th August, 2008.
18. The date and time of arrest is clear from the deposition of Inspector Joginder Kumar (PW-22), who has deposed that he had arrested the appellant vide memo Ex.PW14/K. The said exhibit was proved by SI CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 12 of 23 Balbir Singh (PW-14). PWs-14 and 22 have also proved the disclosure statement of the appellant marked Ex.PW-14/M and that thereafter at the instance of the appellant, the iron pipe used in the commission of offence, one knife used for inflicting injuries on the deceased, blood stained mattress and clothes were recovered and seized vide memo Ex.PW-14/N. The aforesaid articles were sent for FSL examination and as per the FSL report Ex.PW-7/A and 7/B, human blood of group B was found on the iron pipe. Similarly, human blood was found on the mattress cover, but the blood group could not be determined. However, no human blood could be detected on the knife. Thus, human blood of group B was found on the iron pipe, which was recovered from the house of the appellant from underneath the bed. We have quoted the relevant portion of the deposition of Dr. Akhilesh Raj Jhamad (PW-3) as also the post mortem report Ex.PW- 3/A. They refer to an incised lacerated wound on the right shin i.e. front portion of the leg below the knee joint and three incised lacerated wounds of 1×1 cm present over the left shin vertically. Upper one was 5 cm from the left knee joint. Middle one was 5 cm below the upper lacerated wound and the lower lacerated wound was 12 cm from the left ankle joint. We have also noticed that the salwar had cut marks corresponding with the left leg injuries. Presence of the lacerated incised wounds on the two legs of the deceased speak, manifest and reveal the physical violence which had taken CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 13 of 23 place. The said injuries are ante mortem in nature i.e. they were caused before the death. These injuries, though not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, demonstrate and are evidence of the horrific cruelty Sunita was subjected to. Before her death by asphyxia, she had suffered several incised wounds on both legs. We have quoted the relevant portion of the statement made by the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 4th May, 2011. The appellant had claimed that when he came back from the PCO booth, he found that Sunita had hanged herself from the T-iron. He had then cut the ligature and loosened the knot around her neck. Thereafter, he went to call Dr. Gokul i.e. PW-1. At that time, he did not notice any injury on his wife. However, the appellant changed his version in his supplementary statement recorded on 10th August, 2011. The appellant had then propounded that Sunita was receiving repeated calls on her mobile phone and despite his asking, she did not tell him as to who was calling. Thereafter, she had picked up an iron pipe and started hitting her own legs. On being questioned by the appellant, Sunita had impertinently replied that she wanted to implicate the appellant. The said version given by the appellant on 10th August, 2011 is an afterthought and is different from the version given by him on 4 th May, 2011. It is an unconvincing explanation to absolve and exonerate himself. It is apparent that the deceased Sunita had suffered lacerated wounds on her legs, which CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 14 of 23 indicates that physical violence was perpetrated on her before her death. The appellant was the perpetrator who had caused the said wounds.
19. We would like to quote the following table from the Modi‟s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Ed. at pg 769 to enumerate the differences between suicidal and homicidal cuts. This shall help us in understanding whether the injuries suffered by the deceased Sunita were self-inflicted or not.
Suicidal or Self-inflicted Homicidal
Accessible and elective Anywhere in the body
anatomical sites like wrist or
neck
Multiple, linear, parallel cuts Their position and shape vary
Usually incised stab wound Usually chop wounds. Stabs and
lacerations may also be present.
They are superficial at the They are deeper at the
commencement and end is commencement and end is
deeper superficial
In right handed persons from left Any direction to right and from above downwards Defence or protection cuts Defence or protection cuts present absent usually over the ulnar border of forearm Weapons are usually found Weapons are usually absent grasped due to cadaveric spasm or found near body Scene of crime is usually closed Scene of crime is disturbed and room. There are no disturbances signs of struggle may be present of surroundings Clothes not damaged Clothes may be damaged In the present case, as per the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the injuries were not self-inflicted but the perpetrator was a third person i.e. the appellant.
CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 15 of 23
20. Appropriate in this regard would be reference to the photographs marked Ex.PW-10/P-1(Colly). The said photographs were taken by Head Constable Ram Pal (PW-10), who had also produced the negatives. The photographs indicate that the deceased had suffered severe and multiple leg injuries and blood had oozed and spread on her salwar and her legs, which were drenched with blood. The chunni around her neck was very tight and had a knot. One of the photographs shows the half chunni, which was tied to the T angle. The said chunni had a clear cut. The height of the ceiling as per the site plan marked Ex.PW-11/A i.e. the scaled site plan was 270 cms. The height of the ceiling as per the unscaled site plan Ex.PW-22/A was 9 feet. No doubt, there was an aluminium drum lying next to the body of the deceased, but on examination of the photographs and the site plan, it is apparent to us that this is not a case of suicide by hanging. The FSL report Ex.PW-22/B has opined that the chunni piece found on the T angle and the chunni, which was tied around the neck was one and the same. In fact, it would have been very difficult for the appellant to bring down the body on his own by cutting chunni in case the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. As noticed above, as per the medical opinion given in the testimony of Dr. Akhilesh Ran Jhamad (PW-3) and the post mortem report Ex.PW-3/A, it is an obvious case of strangulation and not a case of hanging. The said opinion has been given after noticing the cut section of CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 16 of 23 the neck. Ligature marks were present on the neck. Thyroid and hyoid bones were fractured and hemotoma was present around it. Internal examination showed extra vasation of blood on both side of the neck underneath both platysma sternomastoid pre dominantly on the left side.
21. On the aforesaid aspect, we would like to quote from the Modi‟s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Edition, in which, at page 568, it has been opined that ligature marks depend upon the nature and position of the ligature used, and the time of suspension of the body after death. The mark is usually situated above the thyroid cartilage between the larynx and the chin, and is directed obliquely upward following the line of the mandible and interrupted at the back or may show an irregular impression of a knot, reaching the mastoid processes behind the ears towards the point of suspension. The mark may be found on or below the thyroid cartilage, especially in case of partial suspension. Mark varies according to the nature of the material used as a ligature material and the period of suspension after death. In order to determine whether it is a case of hanging, which in many cases would indicate suicide, medical examination should ascertain whether the neck is stretched and elongated, or whether the head is inclined to the side opposite of the knot. In case of hanging, the face is usually pale and placid, but may be swollen and congested if the body has been long suspended. On the question whether the death was CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 17 of 23 caused by hanging or after the death the body was suspended to avert suspicion of murder, the said text opines:-
"(i) Whether Death was caused by hanging In India, it is a common practice to kill a victim, and then to suspend the body from a tree or a rafter to avert suspicion. Such post mortem hanging simulates suicidal hanging. It is, therefore, necessary to find out if hanging was the cause of death in a suspended body. The presence of a ligature mark alone is not diagnostic of death from hanging, inasmuch as, being a purely cadaveric phenomenon it may be produced if a body has been suspended after death. Often a body is suspended after murder to simulate suicidal hanging. In such cases, a close examination of the direction of the friction marks on the fibres of the rope at the point of suspension, may indicate whether the body was pulled up by someone else or dropped down by its weight. Casper has illustrated by experiments that a mark similar to the one observed in persons hanged alive can be produced if suspended within two hours or even a longer period after death. Besides, a similar mark may also be produced by dragging a body along the ground with a cord passed round the neck soon after death. However, one can safely say that death was due to hanging, if, in addition to the cord mark, there was dribbling of saliva from the angle of mouth, ecchymoses and slight abrasions around the ligature- mark, laceration of the intima of the carotid arteries with extravasation of blood within their walls and the post-mortem signs of asphyxia, besides if there are no evidence of a struggle, scratches and nail marks, fatal injuries or poisoning."
22. On the question of simulated suicidal hanging, it is stated as under:-
"Simulated Suicidal Hanging The diagnosis in such a case would depend on:
(i) An unacceptable distribution of post-mortem staining;CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 18 of 23
(ii) Injuries, which could not have been self
inflicted;
(iii) Examination of the scene of hanging
including beam or branch of tree; and
(iv) Evidence from ligature.
When a dead body is suspended, the rope is usually tied first around the neck and next around the (beam) or branch of tree. If the branch is examined in such an event, there may be evidence that the rope has moved from below to upwards due to body being hauled up, rather than vice versa, which is the usual finding in genuine suicidal hanging. Fibres from the rope on fingernails and hand of the victim may be found in true suicidal hanging. Direction of fibres of a rope may also indicate in which direction the body was pulled up. Such a rope should be examined for presence or absence of any paints similar to one on the beam/door."
23. We would like to quote the following table from the Modi‟s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Ed. at pg 583 to enumerate the differences between hanging and strangulation:-
Hanging Strangulation
1 Mostly suicidal. 1 Mostly homicidal.
2 Face-Usually pale and 2 Face-Congested, livid and
petechiae rare. marked with petechiae.
3 Saliva-Dribbling out of the 3 Saliva-No such dribbling
mouth down on the chin and
chest
4 Neck-Stretched and elongated 4 Neck-Not so.
in fresh bodies
5 External signs of asphyxia, 5 External signs of asphyxia, very
usually not well marked well marked (minimal if death due
to vasovagal and carotid sinus
effect).
6 Bleeding from the nose 6 Bleeding from the nose, mouth
and ears may be found.
7 Ligature mark-Oblique, non- 7 Ligature mark-Horizontal or
continuous placed high up in the transverse continuous, round the
neck between the chin and the next, low down in the next below
larynx, the base of the groove or the thyroid, the base of the groove furrow being hard, yellow and or furrow being soft and reddish. CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 19 of 23 parchment like.
8 Abrasions and ecchymoses 8 Abrasions and ecchymoses round
round about the edges of the about the edges of the ligature
ligature mark, rate. mark, common.
9 Subcutaneous tissues under the 9 Subcutaneous tissue under the
mark-White hard and glistening. mark-Ecchymosed.
10 Injury to the muscles of the 10 Injury to the muscles of the
neck-Rare. next-Common.
11 Carotid arteries, internal 11 Carotid arteries, internal coats
coats ruptured in violent cases of ordinarily ruptured. a long drop.
12 Fracture of the larynx and 12 Fracture of the larynx and
trachea-Very rare and that too in trachea-Often found also hyoid
judicial hanging bone.
13 Fracture-dislocation of the 13 Fracture-dislocaiton of the
cervical veretebrae-Common in cervical vertebrae-Rare.
judicial hanging.
14 Scratches, abrasions and 14 Scratches, abrasions fingernail
bruises on the face, neck and marks and bruises on the face, neck
other parts of the body-Usually and other parts of the body-Usually
not present present.
15 No evidence of sexual 15 Sometimes evidence of sexual
assault. assault.
16 Emphysematous bullae on 16 Emphysematous bullae on the
the surface of the lungs-No surface of the lungs-May be present.
present.
24. Asphyxial deaths have been considered by HWV Cox in his book „Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology‟ Seventh Edition, published by Lexis Nexis Butterworths (hereinafter referred to as „Cox‟). In Section 3, Chapter 2, Cox has given various kinds of Asphyxial deaths caused by suffocation, hanging and strangulation. Strangulation, by Cox has been partly divided into manual strangulation called „throttling‟ and strangulation by ligature (sometimes called „garroting‟). Taking into consideration pathological findings, certain differences have been noted. CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 20 of 23 Cox has stated that in strangulation by ligature, level of ligature is often such that it is well below hyoid bone and fractures are thus less frequent, than in the manual strangulation, where the grip is usually higher. Another difference is that the position of ligature mark in hanging is usually different from that in strangulation, the hanging mark being higher on the neck than when an assailant places a ligature around the victim. The hanging mark normally passes above the larynx, at the level of the base of the tongue, passing then beneath the angles of jaw, rising to a high point, where the noose is joined to the fixed part of the rope or wire. The death is very frequently sudden due to cardiac arrest from pressure upon the large vessels in the neck.
25. Apropos would be reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ravirala Laxmaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2013) 9 SCC 283, which quotes an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Ponnusamy Vs. State of T.N. (2008) 5 SCC 587. The latter decision refers to the Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol.41. Reference can be also made to the decision in Balbir Singh Vs. State, 168 (2010) DLT 406 (DB).
26. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention, as noticed above, to the complaint dated 13th July, 2007. In this complaint, the appellant had made multifarious allegations and had also claimed that the deceased Sunita might commit suicide or inflict injuries on herself to CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 21 of 23 falsely implicate the appellant. We do not think that the aforesaid complaint to the police shows that Sunita had committed suicide. We have noticed the injuries suffered by the deceased on both legs. We have also noticed the medical opinion, photographs of the dead body, the manner in which the chunni was tied around the neck, the blood which had oozed from the legs and the manner in which an attempt was made to show that it was a case of suicide by hanging. It is noticeable that the deceased Sunita was residing separately and independently for the last two years. On 11 th August, 2008, an attempt was made to reconcile the differences. The deceased had, therefore, gone to her matrimonial home from the office of the Delhi State Legal Services Committee. In case, the parties were not able to reconcile the differences, one would have normally expected that Sunita would depart and return to her residence. There is no evidence or material to show that the deceased Sunita was depressed or had tried to commit suicide. It is a case where the appellant acted with vengeance and animosity. The appellant having realised what he had done, tried to cover up and camouflage his act to show that it was a case of self inflicted suicide. Reliable and dependable evidence, on the other hand, clearly manifests and reveals to the contrary. No doubt, in the present case, the appellant had given explanation, but the question is whether the explanation that the deceased had committed suicide should be accepted. CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 22 of 23 After referring to the material on record, we do not think that the explanation given by the appellant should be accepted. The death was by strangulation, and not by hanging.
27. Having examined the aforesaid aspects, we are of the view that the finding of the trial court that this is a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder is correct and should be accepted. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and the order on sentence are maintained. Trial Court records will be sent back.
(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH KUMAR) JUDGE APRIL 6, 2015 NA CRL.A. No. 220/2012 Page 23 of 23