Delhi High Court
Inder Pal vs State Nct Of Delhi on 6 April, 2014
$~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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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;
(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.
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.
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
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.
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
