Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2038 of 2011

Ravirala Laxmaiah                                     …Appellant

Versus

State of A.P.                      …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order  

dated  13.7.2010,  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh  at  

Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 2007, concurring with the  

judgment  and  order  dated  5.2.2007  of  the  Ist  Additional  Sessions  

Judge, Mahabubnagar, Andhra Pradesh, in Sessions Case No. 83 of  

2006, whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty of the  

offences punishable under Sections 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal  

Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as `the IPC’), and was sentenced

Page 2

to  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  life  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  

Rs.100/-, in default of payment of which, simple imprisonment for a  

period of three months under Section 302 IPC; and for the offence  

punishable under Section 404 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period  

of three years, was imposed on him.  However, both the sentences  

were directed to run concurrently.  

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

A. Balamani  (deceased)  was  the  second  wife  of  the  appellant.  

Their  marriage  was  solemnized  in  2002,  for  which  her  father  had  

given dowry of Rs.20,000/-, gold earrings, a ring and silver anklets  

etc. Appellant became suspicious of the fidelity of his wife, and began  

to beat her up at times.  The deceased went to live in the house of her  

parents because of the ill-treatment meted out to her by the appellant.  

However, upon the advice of the elders in her family, she decided to  

go back to the appellant.  The appellant and the deceased were taken  

by G. Balaiah (PW.3), the paternal uncle of deceased to Hyderabad,  

and there he was engaged in coolie work.  Here too, the appellant and  

Balamani  (deceased)  would  often  quarrel,  and the appellant  would  

beat her.  They eventually returned to their village, and 15 days prior  

to the said incident, the appellant had taken Balamani (deceased) to  

2

Page 3

Srisailam and here they had worked at Eagalapenta, attending to the  

petty works in and around the colony for some time.  D.V. Subbaiah  

(PW.2),  a  neighbour,  had  seen  the  appellant  and  the  deceased  

quarrelling,  and  as  a  result  thereof,  had  also  noticed  Balamani  

(deceased) weeping.   

B. On 12.7.2003, Dasu Krishnaiah (PW.1), father of the deceased,  

received a telephone call from the appellant, wherein he was informed  

that Balamani was suffering from a severe stomach ache.  The next  

day,  the  appellant  again  made  a  call  to  the  neighbours  of  Dasu  

Krishnaiah  (PW.1)  and  asked  them  to  give  a  message  to  Dasu  

Krishnaiah (PW.1), asking him to come to Eagalapenta.  However,  

Dasu Krishnaiah (PW.1) was unable to reach there.  The next day, at  

about  10.30  A.M.,  the  appellant  telephonically  informed  Dasu  

Krishnaiah  (PW.1)  that  Balamani  had  committed  suicide.   Dasu  

Krishnaiah (PW.1) immediately rushed by jeep, alongwith his family.  

On the way, they met the appellant at Santa Bazar at Achampet. The  

appellant then informed them that Balamani had committed suicide by  

hanging herself in the `G’ Type Labour Quarters, Near the Krishna  

Guest  House,  Eagalapenta.   Even  on  being  requested  by  Dasu  

Krishnaiah  (PW.1),  the  appellant  refused  to  accompany  them  and  

3

Page 4

instead, escaped from there.  The family of Balamani (deceased) had  

thereafter reached the `G’ type quarters, and here they found that the  

dead body of  Balamani  (deceased)  was  smelling,  and that  from it,  

blood was flowing out of the house over its threshold.  The dead body  

of the deceased was lying on the floor, and two granite stones lay near  

the head of the dead body.  There were tears on certain parts of the  

body of deceased, which clearly indicated that there had been attempts  

made to forcibly snatch off her gold ornaments.   

C. Dasu Krishnaiah (PW.1) filed an FIR regarding the incident on  

15.7.2003, alleging that the appellant had killed Balamani on the night  

of 12.7.2003, by strangulation.   Her nose and ears were viciously cut,  

and all her gold ornaments and anklets had been stolen.   

D. The police had recovered the dead body of Balamani, and had  

got  the  autopsy  performed  upon  it.  The  appellant  had  been  

absconding,  and thus  could be arrested only on 15.7.2003.  On the  

basis of the disclosure statement that was made by the appellant, the  

ornaments of Balamani, deceased, had been recovered in the presence  

of two panch witnesses,  namely, Ganjai Niranjan (PW.8) and Syed  

Aktharali (PW.9). After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet  

4

Page 5

was filed  on 28.10.2005.  Charges were framed on 17.8.2006 against  

the appellant, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 404  

IPC.   

E. After  the  conclusion  of  the  trial,  the  learned  Additional  

Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant vide impugned  

judgment  and  order  dated  5.2.2007,  as  has  been  referred  to  

hereinabove.   

F. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High  

Court, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated  

13.7.2010.   

Hence, this appeal.  

3. Dr.  Aman  Hingorani,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellant has submitted, that the present case was one of suicide by  

hanging, and that the same most certainly did not involve homicide by  

strangulation, as it is evident from the post-mortem report, as well as  

from the deposition of  Dr.  K. Padmavathi  (PW.10),  both of  which  

clearly suggest, that death had been caused as a result of suicide by  

hanging.  Even  otherwise,  there  exist  serious  discrepancies  and  

inconsistencies  in  the  depositions  of  the  witnesses.  There  was  no  

5

Page 6

motive  whatsoever,  for  the  appellant  to  commit  the  murder  of  his  

wife. All the recoveries are fake, and  the material objects, particularly  

jewellery and other items have been planted by the police to falsely  

implicate  the  appellant  in  the  case,  as  recovery  witnesses  of  the  

jewellery,  particularly  Ganjai  Niranjan  (PW.8)  and  Syed  Aktharali  

(PW.9),   do not  support  the recovery of  the aforementioned items.  

The  mere  appearance  and  admission  of  their  signature/thumb  

impression on the memo of recovery, does not prove the recovery.  

Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.  

4. Per contra, Shri Gagandeep Sharma, learned counsel appearing  

for the respondent, has opposed the appeal, contending that opinion of  

Dr. Padmavathi (PW.10) could not be a piece of conclusive evidence.  

It is not necessary that the medical report, as well as the deposition of  

Dr. K. Padmavathi (PW.10) suggest the theory of  suicide by hanging,  

and not of homicidal death by strangulation. The inconsistencies in  

the depositions of the witnesses are minor, and the same natural, as  

the evidence of the said witnesses was recorded after the lapse of a  

long period from the date of incident. The appellant had doubted the  

fidelity of his wife, and had therefore nursed a grudge when she had  

gone  alongwith  her  paternal  uncle  G.  Balaiah  (PW.3)  alone.  

6

Page 7

However,  she had been taken by G. Balaiah (PW.3) alongwith her  

sister. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below do  

not warrant any interference. The appeal lacks merit and is thus, liable  

to be dismissed.  

5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned  

counsel for the parties, and perused the record.  

6. The  Trial  Court  has  appreciated  the  evidence  of  all  the  

witnesses, including medical evidence.  

So  far  as  the  recoveries  are  concerned,  undoubtedly,  Ganjai  

Niranjan  (PW.8)  and  Syed  Aktharali  (PW.9),  do  not  support  the  

recoveries  of  the ornaments.  However,  they have admitted to  their  

signature/thumb impression(s) being present on the recovery memos.   

7. D.V.  Subbaiah  (PW.2)  is  a  circumstantial  witness,  and  has  

deposed that being a neighbour of the couple referred to herein, he  

was fully aware of the fact that the appellant had in fact ill-treated his  

wife, and that there quarrels often arose between them. The deceased  

Balamani would cry a lot.  

7

Page 8

8. G. Balaiah (PW.3), the paternal uncle of deceased has deposed  

that  he had taken the deceased  and her  sister  alongwith  him from  

Hyderabad, and the same had become an issue with respect to which  

the appellant would quarrel bitterly with the deceased Balamani, as he  

doubted her character and he presumed that G. Balaiah (PW.3) had  

taken her alone from Hyderabad. Thus, it is indirectly suggested that  

owing to the suspicious mind of the appellant, he had believed that  

there  had existed  a  questionable  relationship between the deceased  

and G. Balaiah (PW.3).  

9. The Trial Court, after considering the entire evidence on record  

has recorded the following findings:

(i) The conduct of the appellant towards his wife was not cordial,  

and  there  existed  adequate  material  on  record  to  prove  that  the  

accused had in fact been beating and harassing his wife intentionally.

(ii) The evidence on record conclusively proves that the appellant  

had a  deep rooted  motive  to  somehow eliminate  his  wife,  and the  

reason for this was the suspicion he had with respect to her character,  

particularly after she had travelled with G. Balaiah (PW.3) alone (in  

his opinion), from Hyderabad to Bommanapally.

8

Page 9

(iii) The  recovery  witnesses  Ganjai  Niranjan  (PW.8)  and  Syed  

Aktharali (PW.9) particularly as regards the recovery of the jewellery  

of the deceased, do not support the case of the prosecution, but they  

have admitted to their signature/thumb impression(s) appearing on the  

panchnama Ext.P-4.

(iv) Indisputably, the panchnama Ext.P-4 is in relation to material  

objects  1  to  3,  i.e.  in  relation  to   the  ornaments  belonging  to  the  

deceased Balamani.

(v) The appellant  has not  offered any explanation as regards the  

gold ornaments of his wife being in his possession.  He had been fully  

aware of the death of his wife from the very beginning.  

(vi) The appellant had been in the company of his wife at the time  

of her death, and had been last seen with her. It is not the case of the  

appellant that any other person could have come and committed the  

crime.  

(vii) The evidence on record fully excludes the theory of suicide, and  

establishes the cause of death as homicidal.

(viii) The appellant had been giving misleading information to Dasu  

Krishnaiah (PW.1), the father of the deceased.

9

Page 10

(ix) The appellant  had stayed in  a  guest  house,  leaving the dead  

body of his deceased wife lying in the house, and had subsequently,  

after meeting the family members of the deceased,  absconded, and  

could only be apprehended after several days.  

(x) Any  inconsistencies,  embellishments  or  discrepancies  in  the  

evidence are  minor, and do not go to the root of the case.  

10. The  High  Court  has  re-appreciated  the  entire  evidence  on  

record, and has concurred with the conclusions arrived at by the Trial  

Court, observing as under:  

That the appellant had been with the deceased at the time of her  

death. He had furnished false information to the family members of  

the deceased, and the recovery of the jewellery of the deceased from  

the house of the accused had been made at his behest. The defence put  

forward  by  the  appellant  stating  that  the  deceased  had  committed  

suicide by hanging herself at their residence, was not acceptable. The  

tears  present  on  the  body  of  the  deceased  indicated  the  forcible  

snatching of her ornaments.  

11. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, the High Court has  

dealt  with  the  opinion  of  Dr.  K.  Padmavathi  (PW.10),  who  has  

10

Page 11

referred to Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, wherein it  

has been stated that, “hyoid bone and superior cornuae of the thyroid  

cartilage are not, as a rule, fractured by any other means other than by  

strangulation”, although the larynx and the trachea may, in rare cases,  

be fractured as a result of a fall. The postmortem has revealed that the  

fracture  of  the  hyoid  bone  is  characterised  by  the  absence  of  

hemorrhage in the tissues around the fracture.   

Furthermore, the High Court has dealt with the factual matrix of  

the case and has relied upon the statement of Dasu Krishnaiah (PW.1),  

who has deposed that the sari of the deceased had been thrown into a  

corner of the room, and that it had not been cut into two pieces as was  

suggested by the appellant accused. The appellant has suggested that  

he had cut the sari  with a knife,  and had let the dead body of his wife  

onto the floor. As an observation of the scene of the offence does not  

indicate that the remaining piece of sari had been found on the ceiling,  

and the prosecution has established the other facts regarding them last  

being seen and living together.  The case against the appellant stands  

fully proved, and the theory that the deceased had committed suicide  

by hanging herself, is a false plea taken by the appellant, which in  

11

Page 12

itself is an additional link connecting the appellant to the commission  

of offence.  

12. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, the issue involved  

herein is no more res integra.            

This  Court  dealt  with  the  issue  in  Ponnusamy  v.  State  of  

Tamil Nadu, AIR 2008 SC 2110, and observed as under:  

“20-21. It is true that the autopsy surgeon, PW 17, did   not  find  any  fracture  on  the  hyoid  bone.  Existence  of   such  a  fracture  leads  to  a  conclusive  proof  of   strangulation but absence thereof does not prove contra.   In  Taylor's  Principles  and  Practice  of  Medical   Jurisprudence, 13th Edn., pp. 307-08, it is stated:

‘The hyoid bone is ‘U’ shaped and composed of   five  parts:  the body,  two greater and two lesser   horns. It is relatively protected, lying at the root of   the tongue where the body is difficult to feel. The   greater horn, which can be felt more easily,  lies   behind  the  front  part  of  the  strip  muscles   (sternomastoid), 3 cm below the angle of the lower   jaw and 1.5 cm from the midline. The bone ossifies   from six centres, a pair for the body and one for   each  horn.  The  greater  horns  are,  in  early  life,   connected to the body by cartilage but after middle   life  they  are  usually  united  by  bone.  The  lesser   horns  are  situated  close  to  the  junction  of  the   greater horns in the body. They are connected to   the  body  of  the  bone  by  fibrous  tissue  and   occasionally  to  the  greater  horns  by  synovial   joints  which  usually  persist  throughout  life  but   occasionally become ankylosed.

Our  own  findings  suggest  that  although  the   hardening of the bone is related to age there can   

12

Page 13

be  considerable  variation  and  elderly  people   sometimes show only slight ossification.

From the above consideration of the anatomy it   will be appreciated that while injuries to the body   are  unlikely,  a  grip  high  up  on  the  neck  may   readily  produce  fractures  of  the  greater  horns.   Sometimes it would appear that the local pressure   from the thumb causes a fracture on one side only. While the amount of force in manual strangulation   would often appear to be greatly in excess of that   required  to  cause  death,  the application of  such   force, as evidenced by extensive external and soft   tissue injuries, make it unusual to find fractures of   the hyoid bone in a person under the age of 40   years.

As  stated,  even  in  older  people  in  which   ossification  is  incomplete,  considerable  violence   may leave this bone intact. This view is confirmed   by Green. He gives interesting figures: in 34 cases   of manual strangulation the hyoid was fractured in   12 (35%) as compared with the classic paper of   Gonzales who reported four fractures in 24 cases.   The figures in strangulation by ligature show that   the percentage of hyoid fractures was 13. Our own  figures are similar to those of Green.’

22. In  Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 41 under the   title  — Fracture  of  the  Hyoid  Bone  in  Strangulation:   Comparison of Fractured and Unfractured Hyoids from  Victims of Strangulation, it is stated:

‘The hyoid is the U-shaped bone of the neck that   is  fractured  in  one-third  of  all  homicides  by   strangulation.  On  this  basis,  post-mortem   detection  of  hyoid  fracture  is  relevant  to  the   diagnosis of strangulation. However, since many   cases lack a hyoid fracture, the absence of this   finding does not exclude strangulation as a cause   of death. The reasons why some hyoids fracture   and others do not may relate to the nature and   magnitude of force applied to the neck, age of the  

13

Page 14

victim,  nature  of  the  instrument  (ligature  or   hands) used to strangle, and intrinsic anatomic   features  of  the  hyoid  bone.  We  compared  the   case profiles and xeroradiographic appearance   of  the  hyoids  of  20  victims  of  homicidal   strangulation with and without hyoid fracture (n   = 10,  each).  The fractured hyoids  occurred  in   older  victims  of  strangulation  (39 ±  14 years)   when compared to the victims with unfractured   hyoids (30 ± 10 years). The age dependency of   hyoid  fracture  correlated  with  the  degree  of   ossification or fusion of the hyoid synchondroses.   The  hyoid  was  fused  in  older  victims  of   strangulation  (41  ±  12  years)  whereas  the   unfused hyoids were found in the younger victims   (28 ± 10 years). In addition, the hyoid bone was   ossified or fused in 70% of all fractured hyoids,   but,  only  30% of  the  unfractured  hyoids  were   fused.  The  shape  of  the  hyoid  bone  was  also   found to differentiate fractured and unfractured   hyoids.  Fractured  hyoids  were  longer  in  the   anterior-posterior plane and were more steeply   sloping when compared with unfractured hyoids.   These data indicate that hyoids of strangulation   victims,  with  and  without  fracture,  are   distinguished  by  various  indices  of  shape  and  rigidity.  On  this  basis,  it  may  be  possible  to   explain why some victims of strangulation do not   have fractured hyoid bones.’

23. Mr Rangaramanujam, however, relied upon  Modi's   Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Edn. at p.   584  wherein  a  difference  between  hanging  and   strangulation  has  been  stated.  Our  attention  in  this   connection has been drawn to Point 12 which reads as   under:

Hanging Strangulation Fracture  of  the   larynx  and  

Fracture  of  the   larynx and trachea –

14

Page 15

trachea-

Very rare and that   too  in  judicial   hanging

Often  found  also  hyoid bone.

24. A bare perusal of the opinion of the learned author   by itself does not lead to the conclusion that fracture of   hyoid bone, is a must in all the cases.”

13. Dr. Aman Hingorani has submitted that in the present case, the  

post mortem report is completely silent about the ligature mark and its  

characteristics, as a result of which it cannot be said that the present  

case was one of homicidal strangulation/throttling as alleged by the  

prosecution.   Dr.  Hingorani  has  placed  a  very  heavy  reliance  on  

Modi’s  Medical  Jurisprudence  and  Toxicology  wherein  after  

emphasizing  that  “hyoid  bone and superior  cornuae  of  the  thyroid  

cartilage are not, as a rule, fractured by any other means other than by  

strangulation”,  has  given  the  differences  between  hanging  and  

strangulation in tabulated form, two of them being as follows:

Hanging Strangulation Ligature  Mark  –  Oblique,  non- continuous  placed  high up in the neck  between  the  chin  and the larynx, the   base of the groove   of  furrow  being  hard,  yellow  and  

Ligature Mark – Horizontal  or  transverse  continuous, round the  neck, low down in the   neck  below  the  thyroid,  the  base  of   the groove or furrow  being  soft  and  

15

Page 16

parchment like

Scratches,   abrasions  and  bruises on the face,   neck  and  other   parts of the body –  Usually not present

reddish

Scratches,  abrasions  and  bruises  on  the  face,  neck  and  other   parts of the body –  Usually not present

14. However,  in  view  of  the  binding  decision  referred  to  

hereinabove, we concur with the reasoning that has been given by the  

Trial Court, as well as by the High Court and are not in a position to  

accept the submissions made by Dr. Aman Hingorani.  

15. It  is  a  settled  legal  proposition  that  in  a  case  based  on  

circumstantial evidence, where no eye-witness’s account is available,  

the principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the  

accused  and  the  said  accused  either  offers  no  explanation  for  the  

same, or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the  

same  becomes  an  additional  link  in  the  chain  of  circumstances  to  

make it  complete.  (Vide:  State of  U.P. v.  Dr.  Ravindra Prakash  

Mittal,  AIR 1992 SC 2045;  Gulab Chand v.  State of  M.P.,  AIR  

1995 SC 1598;  State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran, AIR 1999 SC  

3535;  State  of  Maharashtra  v.  Suresh, (2000)  1  SCC  471;  and  

Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 731).  

16

Page 17

16. In Neel Kumar @ Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 5  

SCC 766, this Court observed  :  

“30. It  is  the  duty  of  the  accused  to  explain  the   incriminating  circumstance  proved  against  him  while   making a statement  under Section 313 CrPC. Keeping   silent  and  not  furnishing  any  explanation  for  such   circumstance  is  an  additional  link  in  the  chain  of   circumstances  to  sustain  the  charges  against  him.   Recovery  of  incriminating  material  at  his  disclosure   statement  duly  proved  is  a  very  positive  circumstance   against him. (See also:  Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State  of Uttaranchal, AIR 2010 SC 773)”

17. In cases where the accused has been seen with the deceased  

victim (last seen theory), it becomes the duty of the accused to explain  

the circumstances under which the death of the victim has occurred.  

(Vide: Nika Ram v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC  

2077;  Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106; and  

Ponnusamy (supra).

18. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006)  

10 SCC 681, this Court held as under:  

“Where  an  accused  is  alleged  to  have  committed  the   murder  of  his  wife  and  the  prosecution  succeeds  in   leading  evidence  to  show  that  shortly  before  the   commission  of  crime  they  were  seen  together  or  the   offence  takes  place  in  the  dwelling  home  where  the   

17

Page 18

husband also normally resided, it has been consistently   held that if the accused does not offer any explanation   how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation   which is found to be false,  it  is a strong circumstance   which indicates that he is responsible for commission of   the crime.”

(See  also:   Prithipal  Singh & Ors.  v.  State  of  Punjab & Anr.,  

(2012) 1 SCC 10)

19. In  view  of  the  above  discussion,  we  reach  the  inescapable  

conclusion that appellant had been doubting the character of his wife  

and therefore, had adequate motive to eliminate her.  In spite of the  

fact  that  he  had  been  in  the  same  room,  he  failed  to  furnish  any  

explanation as under what circumstances his  wife was found dead.  

Particularly, in view of the fact that the courts below had excluded the  

theory of suicide. The same conclusion stands fully fortified by the  

fact that the saree of deceased was lying in the corner of the room and  

the version given by the appellant that he had found his wife hanging  

with a saree around her neck and he cut the same by knife stands fully  

falsified as in such a fact-situation, part of the saree should have been  

found  hanging  with  the  ceiling  of  the  room.   The  conduct  of  the  

appellant  that  he  had given a  false  information to  his  in-laws  and  

while dead body was lying in his house he stayed in a Krishna Guest  

18

Page 19

House;  further that he had absconded from the city itself, suggest that  

he is guilty of the offence.

20. In  view of  the  above,  we  do  not  find  any cogent  reason  to  

interfere  with  the  judgments  and  orders  of  the  courts  below.  The  

appeal lacks merit, and is accordingly dismissed.

……………………………...J.                                                                 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN]  

  ...…….…….......................... J.                                                                 [DIPAK MISRA]  NEW DELHI;  MAY 28, 2013      

19