Full Text
I
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.220/2011
Date ofdecision:6^^ April,2015 INDERPAL Appellant
Through Mr. Kumar Vaibhav,Advocates.
Through Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, Additional I Public Prosecutor.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR SANJIV KHANNA.J.(ORAL):
The appellant Inder Pal Singh challenges his conviciton for murder ofhis wife Sunita by the impugned
JUDGMENT
Sessions Case No.117/2009 arising out ofFIRNo.394/2008,police station
Kalkaji. By order on sentence dated 23"^^ August,2011,the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonmentfor life and to pay a fine ofRs.5,000/-.In default ofpayment offine,he has to fiirther undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Benefit ofSection 428 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973(Cr.P.C.)has been extended to him.
CRL.A.No.220/2012 Page 1 of23 2015:DHC:10762-DB
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugnedjudgmentis erroneousasthis is acase ofsuicide and notmurder 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 appellanthad himselfinformed the police by making a call atnumber 100, Reference is also made to a document i.e. the complaint dated 13'^ July, 2007,which is a part ofthe trial courtrecord.
3. We have considered the said contentions,but regret our inability to agree with the learned counselforthe appellant.
4. Laxmi(PW-15), mother of the deceased Sunita, in her deposition recorded on 14^December,2009,has stated thatthe appellanthad married her daughter about 17 years back and they had three children. Abouttwo 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 ofSunita. In the legal proceedings, the Court had directed the appellant to pay maintenance ofRs.1500/- per month to Sunita,butthe 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 appellantInder CRL.A.No.220/2012 Page2of23 li PalSinghon22"^February,1992,butsoonafterthemarriage,theappellant started harassing Sunita. He usedtogive beatings and would ask Sunitato get money. He suspected herfidelity and because ofthis,they used to be quarrel. On VJuly,2007,theappellanthad beaten Sunita badlyandPW- 16madeareportinthisregardatPoliceStationGovindPuri. On 10^"^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 toreturnto herparentalhome. A case wasregistered by Sunita against the appellant. The appellant was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month,butthe alimony/maintenance wasnotpaid. On 11^^ 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 thatthe 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^ August,2008, he had not accompanied Sunitato the Court. He denied the suggestionthat th on 11 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] 23 appellant. Similarsuggestions weregiven toLaxmi(PW-15),whodenied that her daughter Sunita had committed suicide. She has also denied the suggestion that Sunita had illicit relations with Ramesh,her other son-inlaw.
6. On the question that there were matrimonial disputes between the appellant and the deceased Sunita, we have the deposition of Mohd.
1 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 ofWomen from Domestic Violence Act,2005. The said case wasinstituted on26'^February,2008. Certified copy ofthe court proceedings were marked Ex.PW-5/A.
7. Equallyrelevantis thetestimony ofKusum Sharma,Superintendent, LegalAid,Gole Market,who had appeared asPW-6. She has deposedthat on 25''"July,2008,the appellanthad 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 ll^*" August,2008,the deceased had visited the office of Delhi Legal Services Clinic, Gole Market. The appellant had agreed to pay arrears ofmaintenance by next month. The next date fixed was 22"'' August,2008. Subsequently,they learntthat Sunita had died. CRL.A.No.220/2012 Page4of23 (n^
8. Umesh, son of the appellant and the deceased Sunita, who has deposedasPW-4,testifiedthaton ll'"August,2008,hewaspresentathis rented house at Madan Gir,New Delhi,where he used to reside with his mother Sunita. Atabout6P.M.,heieamtaboutthe death ofhis mother, who had been purportedly murdered by his father at Govind Puri. He affirmed thaton II"August,2008,Sunita had gone to attend Lok Adaiat 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 doubtfidelity ofhis mother i.e.the deceased Sunita and that the appellant normally used to be under the influence of liquor.
9. Itis clearfromthe aforesaid testimoniesthatthere were disputesand differences between the deceased Sunita and her husband i.e. the present appellant. Deceased Sunita had moved outfrom her matrimonialhome 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 11*''August,2008,deceased Sunitaandthe appellantInderPal Singh had attended Lok Adaiat proceedings at Gole Market. Thereafter, Sunita did notreturn backto her parental home.Deceased Sunita,afterthe CRL.A.No.220/2012 Pages of23 proceedings had gone with the appellant to her matrimonial home. This finds support from the supplementary statement ofthe appellant under Section 311 Cr.P.C.,made on 11 August2008,wherein the appellanthad accepted m 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,GovindPurion 11^*^August,2008 between[3].30P.M.to4P.M.
10. Gokul Chandra Rai(PW-1) was running a medical clinic in the premises No.188,TransitCamp,Govid Puri. He had testified thatatabout 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 wascrying and weeping. PW-1 wentto the appellant's residence and found that that his wife was lying on the floor with half portion ofa chunni around her neck. The other halfportion ofthe chunni was tied on the iron angle on the roof. Tongue ofthe 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 ofthe 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 Page6of23 injuryonthebodyofthedeceased,butoncourtqueiy,clarifiedthathehad not checked or examined the entire body ofthe deceased. The deceased was wearing asalwarand kameezand he had notseenthe covered partof thedeceased'sbodyandhadhardlyremainedatthespotfor4-5minutes.
11. Furkan,a neighbour ofthe appellant,has deposed asPW-2. He has stated that between 3-4 P.M.,the appellantInder Pal Singh was going in frontofhishouse. PW-2spoketothe appellantwhoinformed him thathis wife had committed suicide by hanging. PW-2 had then asked the appellantto take his wife to the hospital. InderPal 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 AdditionalPublicProsecutor on certain aspects,but we need not dilate and go into the said aspects.
12. The fact that the dead body ofSunita 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 11*'' August, 2008 atpolice postGovindPuri,police station Kalkaji. The saidDD entry was subsequently endorsed and became the mettle ofthe FIR in question markedEx.PW-9/A. ThesaidDD entryrecordsthatthe wirelessoperator hadcommunicatedthatatHouseNo.B-334,TransitCamp,GovindPuri,a personhadinformedthathis wifehadtriedtocommitsuicide byhanging. ThesaidDD wasmarkedto ASIBalbirSingh(PW-14)and ConstableAnil Kumar(PW-19). Itis noticeablethattheappellantdoesnotdisputeandin fact accepts thathe had made the said call. He also does notdispute and accepts that the deceased had died an unnatural death at his residence i.e. House No.B-334, Transit Camp, Govind Puri on 11**^ 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.l had accepted that he had giveninformationto the police,which wasrecorded asDD 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. Healso accepted ascorrectthathe had moved an application before the DelhiLegal Services Committee on 25""July,2008and on 11'*"August, 2008 had visited the office ofthe said Committee at Gole Market, where his wife Sunita was also present. Hisresponse to question Nos.23,24 and 25 asrecorded on 4^''May,2011,read as under:- "Q-23. Whythis case against you? Ans. It is afalse 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. WhyPWshave deposed against you? CRL.A.No.220/2012 „ „ Page8of23 Ans. Theyhave deposedfalsely. Q-25. Have youanything elsetosay? ^s. Iam imocent. The deceased wasthreatening o iiwolve me in some case. I had gone to the PCO boothtoinform thisto the police. WhenIcame backI tound my wife hanging on the T-iron. I had cut the ligature and brought her body down and loosened the knotaround herneck. ThenI wentto the Dr.Gokulto call him. WhenIcame back with the Dr.Gokul at my house there wasno injury onthe person ofmy wife. I again went to the shop ofSTD to call the police but when I came back two police officers were already present at the door ofthe house. They did not allow me to enter the house and took me to the police post. Later onI wasfalselyimplicated inthis case."
13. The appellant made a supplementary statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 10^ August, 2011 and his response to question Nos.l 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 ofmy 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 waslodged bythe police. Ans. I cannot say anything about the cause of death. On 11.08.2008,[1] 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 herselfon her legs. I asked her whyshe was doing this and she said that she would implicate me in some case. I had gone out ofthe STD booth to give a call to the police. I came back within 10 minutes and saw my CRL.A.No.220/2012 Page9of23 wife Sunita hanging. I cannotsay anything aboutthe ligature strangulation." ""ui me
14. Answer to question No.l quoted above afflmts the motive foj murder and the cause ofdispute as perthe appellant. The appellanthad levelled allegations against the deceased Sunita and suspected illicit relationshipofhiswifewithRameshChand,herbrother-in-law. Appellant hasstatedthathehadmadeacomplainttothepolicestationKaikajiinthis regard. The said Ramesh Chand had appeared and deposed asPW-8. He has stated that he was married to the sister ofthe deceased Sunita, but denied having anyillicitrelationship 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 ofthe deceased Sunita. He denied the suggestion that he had any illicit relationship with deceased Sunitaorthatwasthereason whythe appellanthad beenimplicated.
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 orderto decide the said question,we have examined the post mortem report marked Ex.PW-3/A and the deposition ofDr.Akhilesh Raj Jhamad(PW-3),who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body ofSunita on 13'*^ August,2008. PW-3 has deposed that at CRL.A.No.220/2012 „,n Page 10 of23 the time of conducting the post mortem examination, the following external ante mortem injuries were noticed 1.lacerated wound overrightside ofoccipitalregion 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 ofthe neck.The length ofupper ligature mark is 7.[5] cm and that oflower ligature mark is 8 cm.Both ligature marks were reddish brown in colour. Width of' upper ligature mark is 2cm and lower ligature mark is 1 cm.The distance between two ligature mark is 2cm.The upper ligature mark is 10 cm from chin and 5 cm from suprastemal angle 8 cm from chin and 10 cm from the suprastemal 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 7cm.The neck circumference is 30 cm.A pressure abrasion of2X2cm 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 ofthe leg below the knee)present2X2cm.It is 4cm below the rightkneejoint.
4. Three incised looking lacerated wound of size 1X[1] cm each present overthe leftshin 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 anglejoint.
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 of64 cm. The clothes ofthe deceased were CRL.A.No.220/2012 Page 11 of23 blood stained and the cuts present on the salwar of the deceased corresponded with the leftleg injuries. Onthe question ofcause ofdeath, Dr.AkhileshRajJhamad(PW-3)testifiedand elucidated:- "Cut section ofneck shows extra vasation ofblood on both side of the neck underneath both platysma stemomastoid pre dominantly on left side. Thyroid and hyoid bones are fractured with hemotoma present around it. Thetracheal mucosacongested. Opinion:- The cause ofdeath in this case is asphyxia due to ligature strangulation, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course ofnature. All injuries are ante mortem in nature. Time since death was abouttwo days.
17. The post mortem report marked Ex.PW-3/A records that the deceased was32years ofage 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 historyofhanging at[3].35P.M.on 1 August,2008 atB-334,Transit Camp,New Delhi,Kalkaji has been mentioned. The said post mortem report was conducted on 13'^ 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 l?^*"August,2008.
18. The date and time ofarrest is clear from the deposition ofInspector 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 12of23 Balbir Singh(PW-14). PWs-14 and 22 have also proved the disclosure statement ofthe appellant marked Ex.PW-14/M and that thereafter at the instance ofthe appellant,theiron pipe used inthe commission ofoffence, 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 sentfor FSL examination and as perthe FSL reportEx.PW-7/A and 7/B,human blood ofgroupB wasfound ontheiron pipe. Similarly, human blood was found on the mattress cover, but the blood group could notbe determined. However,no human blood could be detected on the knife. Thus,human blood ofgroup B was found on the iron pipe, which was recovered from the house of the appellant from underneaththe bed. We have quotedtherelevantportion ofthe deposition ofDr.AkhileshRajJhamad(PW-3)asalsothepostmortem reportEx.PW- 3/A. They refer to an incised lacerated wound on the right shin i.e. front portion ofthe leg below the kneejoint and three incised lacerated wounds of1x[1] cm present over the left shin vertically. Upper one was[5] cm from theleftkneejoint. Middle one was5cm below the upperlacerated wound and the lower lacerated wound was 12 cm from the left ankle joint. We have also noticedthatthesalwarhad cutmarkscorresponding withtheleft leginjuries.Presenceofthelaceratedincised woundsonthetwolegsofthe deceased speak,manifestand revealthe physical violence which had taken CRL.A.No.220/2012 „ Page 13 of23 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 ofthe horrific cruelty Sunita was subjected to. Before her death by asphyxia, she had suffered severalincised woundson bothlegs. Wehave quotedtherelevant portion ofthe statement made by the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 4^^May,2011. The appellanthad claimed that when he came back from the PCO booth, he found that Sunita had hanged herselffrom the T-iron. He had then cutthe ligature and loosened the knot around her neck. Thereafter,he wentto callDr.Gokuli.e.PW-1. Atthattime,he did not notice any injury on his wife. However, the appellant changed his version in his supplementary statement recorded on 10^ August, 2011. The appellanthadthen propounded thatSunita wasreceiving repeated calls on her mobile phone and despite his asking,she did nottell 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 appellanton lO**" August,2011 is an afterthought and is different from the version given by him on 4^^ May, 2011. It is an unconvincing explanation to absolve and exonerate himself.It is apparent thatthe deceased Sunita had suffered lacerated wounds on her legs, which CRL.A.No.220/2012 Page 14of23 indicates that physical violence was perpetrated on her before her death. Theappellantwastheperpetratorwhohadcausedthesaid wounds.
19. We would like to quote the following table from the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23" 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 deeeased Sunita were self-inflicted or not. Suicidal or Self-inflicted Homicidal Accessible and elective anatomical sites like wrist or neck Anywherein the body 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 commencement and end is deeper They are deeper at the commencement and end is superficial In right handed personsfrom left to right and from above downwards Any direction Defence or protection cuts absent Defence or protection cuts present usually over the ulnar border of forearm Weapons are usually found grasped due to cadaveric spasm orfound near body Weapons are usually absent Scene ofcrime is usually closed room. There are no disturbances ofsurroundings Scene of crime is disturbed and signs ofstruggle may be present Clothes not damaged Clothes may be damaged In the present case, as per the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the injuries werenotself-inflicted buttheperpetrator wasathirdperson i.e.the appellant. Page 15 of23
20. Appropriate in this regard would be reference to the photographs marked Ex.PW-lO/P-1(Colly). The said photographs were taken by Head Constable Ram Pal(PW-10), who had also produced the negatives. The photographsindicatethatthedeceasedhadsufferedsevere and multipleleg injuries and blood had oozed and spread on hersalwarand herlegs,which were drenched with blood. Thechunniaround herneck wasverytightand had a knot. One ofthe photographs showsthe halfchunni,which wastied to the T angle. The said chunni had a clear cut. The height ofthe ceiling as per the site plan marked Ex.PW-ll/A i.e. the scaled site plan was 270 cms. The height ofthe ceiling as per the unsealed site plan Ex.PW-22/A was9feet. No doubt,there was an aluminium drum lying nextto the body ofthe deceased,buton examination ofthe 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 ofDr. Akhilesh Ran Jhamad(PW-3)and the post mortem report Ex.PW-3/A,it is an obvious case ofstrangulation and not a case of hanging. The said opinion has been given after noticing the cut section of CRL.A.No.220/2012 Pagg jg gf23 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 bothplatysmastemomastoid predominantlyontheleftside.
21. On the aforesaid aspect, we would like to quote from the Modi's MedicalJurisprudenceand Toxicology,23'^Edition,in which,atpage568, ithas been opined thatligature marks depend upon the nature and position ofthe ligature used, and the time ofsuspension ofthe body after death. The markis usually situated abovethethyroid cartilage betweenthelarynx and the chin, and is directed obliquely upward following the line ofthe mandible and interrupted atthe back or may show an irregular impression ofaknot,reaching the mastoid processes behind the earstowardsthe point ofsuspension. 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 headisinclinedto the side opposite ofthe knot. In case ofhanging,the face is usually pale and placid, but may be swollen and congested ifthe body has been long suspended. On the question whether the death was CRL.A.No.220/2012 p^gg 17gf23 at caused by hanging or after the death the body was suspended to avert suspicion ofmurder,thesaidtextopines "(i) WhetherDeath wascaused byhanging InIndia,itis acommon practiceto kill a victim,and then to suspend the bodyfrom atree or arafterto avert suspicion. Such post mortem hanging simulates suicidal hanging. It is,therefore,necessary to find out ifhanging wasthecauseofdeathin asuspended body. ^ The presence of a ligature mark alone is not diagnostic ofdeath from hanging,inasmuch as,being a purely cadaveric phenomenon it may be produced ifa body has been suspended after death. Often a body is suspended after murder to simulate suicidal hanging. In such cases, a close examination ofthe direction of the friction marks on the fibres ofthe rope atthe 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 ifsuspended 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 ofsaliva from the angle ofmouth, ecchymoses and slight abrasions around the ligaturemark, laceration of the intima of the carotid arteries with extravasation of blood within their walls and the post-mortem signs ofasphyxia, besides ifthere are no evidence ofa struggle, scratches and nail marks, fatal injuries or poisoning."
22. On the question ofsimulated suicidal hanging,itis 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 ig of23
(ii) Injuries, which could not have been self inflicted;
(iii) Examination of the scene of hanging including beam or branch oftree;and
(iv) Evidence from ligature.
"^en a dead body is suspended, the rope is usually tied first around the neck and next around the(beam) or branch oftree. Ifthe 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 ofthe victim may befound 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 ofany paints similarto one onthe beam/door."
23. We would like to quote the following table from the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23'^'' Ed. at pg 583 to enumerate the differences between hanging and strangulation:- Hanging Strangulation 1 Mostly suicidal. 1 Mostly homicidal.
5 External signs of asphyxia, usually not well marked 5 External signs of asphyxia, very well marked (minimal if death due to vasovagal and carotid sinus effect).
7 Ligature mark-Oblique, noncontinuous placed high up in the neck between the chin and the larynx,the base ofthe groove or furrow being hard, yellow and
7 Ligature mark-Horizontal or transverse continuous, round the next, low down in the next below the thyroid, the base of the groove orfurrow being soft and reddish. Page 19of23 parchmentlike.
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 pathologicalfindings,certain differences have been noted. CRL.A.No.220/2012 Page 20 of23 Cox has stated that in strangulation by ligature,level ofligature is often such thatit is well below hyoid bone and fi-actures are thus less frequent, thaninthe manualstrangulation,wherethe grip is usually higher.Another difference is that the position of ligature mark in hanging is usually differentfrom thatin 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,atthe level ofthe base of the tongue,passing then beneath the angles ofjaw,rising to a high point, where the noose isjoined to the fixed partofthe 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 ofthe Supreme Courtin Ravirala Laxmaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2013) 9 SCC 283, J.' which quotes an earlier decision ofthe Supreme Court in Ponnusamy Vs. State o/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 BalbirSingh Vs.State,168(2010)DLT406(DB).
26. Learned counselforthe appellanthas drawn our attention,as noticed above, to the complaint dated 13*^ 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 p^gg21 of23 i J. falsely implicate the appellant. We do not think that the aforesaid complainttothe policeshowsthatSunitahad committed suicide. Wehave noticed the injuries suffered by the deceased on both legs. We have also noticed the medical opinion,photographs ofthe dead body,the mannerin which the chunni was tied around the neck,the blood which had oozed from thelegsandthe mannerin which an attempt was madetoshow thatit was a case ofsuicide by hanging. Itis noticeable thatthe deceased Sunita was residing separately and independently for the last two years. On 11^^ 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 Page22of23 After refemng to the material on record, we do not think that the explanationgiven bytheappellantshould beaccepted. Thedeath wasby Strangulation,and notbyhanging.
27. Having examined the aforesaid aspects, we are ofthe view thatthe findingofthetrial courtthatthisisacaseofculpablehomicideamounting to murder is correct and should be accepted. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and the order on sentence are maintained. Trial Courtrecords will be sent back. '-17 (SANJIVKHANNA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH KUMAR) JUDGE APRIL[6],2015 NA ^