STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs RAMESH
Bench: S.A. BOBDE,PRAFULLA C. PANT
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001526-001526 / 2008
Diary number: 19372 / 2006
Advocates: MILIND KUMAR Vs
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1526 OF 2008
State of Rajasthan … Appellant
Versus
Ramesh …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Prafulla C. Pant,J.
This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated
04.01.2006, passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, whereby said Court has allowed D.B.
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 397 of 2000, and set aside the
conviction and sentence recorded against respondent Ramesh by
Sessions Judge, Jaipur, under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian
Penal Code (IPC), and acquitted him of the charge.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that PW-1 Prithviraj Singh gave
Page 2
2
a telephonic information on 28.04.1999 at about 10.55 p.m. to
PW-7 Bhagwan Singh, Station House Officer of Police Station
Kalwad that Sheela, eldest daughter of his servant Ramesh
(respondent) has committed suicide by hanging. The Station
House Officer rushed to the spot. He made enquiries from
Ramesh in the farm house where he used to work, and lived with
his three daughters. He (Ramesh) told the Station House Officer
that his daughter went out of the farm house at about 8.30 p.m.
and came back after some time. Ramesh further told that he
objected to his daughter’s conduct of meeting PW-9 Bablu, and
scolded her. Thereafter power went off. He further told the
Station House Officer that after some time when generator was
started, he saw that Sheela has hanged herself. The knot was
opened and the body was brought down. The Station House
Officer mentioned these facts in the report/marg No. 7/99
prepared under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC). He prepared site plan, took dead body in his possession,
and got prepared inquest report (Ex. P-1) in the early hours of
29.04.1999. He directed PW-11 Assistant Sub Inspector Maliram
to make further inquiries under Section 174 CrPC. The Assistant
Sub Inspector, after recording the statements of Ramesh and
other witnesses present there, gave report on 30.04.1999, on the
Page 3
3
basis of which First Information Report (Ex. P-11) was registered
as Crime No. 63/99 relating to offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The Station House Officer himself
took up the investigation. Meanwhile, autopsy was conducted on
29.04.1999 on the dead body of Sheela by PW-8 Dr. Viveka Nand
of S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, at the request of the police, who found
following ante mortem injuries: -
“External injuries seen at the time of P.M. Examination
(i) Abrasion 1.5 cm x ½ cm on area 2 cm below middle of the right mandibular rim on right side upper neck.
(ii) Abrasion ½ cm x ¼ cm on right side neck in middle/3
(iii) Abrasion 1 cm x ¼ cm on lateral half of right clavicle.
(iv) Abrasion 1.25 cm x ¼ cm on suprasternal notch.
(v) Abrasion 1/6 cm on area just below right side lower lip.
(vi) Abrasion ½ cm x ¼ cm on area just above right angel of mouth.
(vii) Three linear abrasions each of size 1 cm x ¼ cm parallel to each other on area just above right angle of mouth on right side face.
(viii) Abrasion 2 cm x ¼ cm just above right elbow on right arm dorsally.
(ix) Abrasion 2 cm in length linear x skin deep
Page 4
4
vertical on right palm below bone of right middle finger.
(x) Abrasion ¼ x 1/6 cm on left medial melleolus.
(xi) Abrasion ¼ cm x 1/6 cm on area below left medial melleolus on left foot.
(xii) Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm on dorsing right forearm upper/3.
Neck dissection – on dissection of neck there is haematoma ć (with) tissue staining found at following places red in colour antemortem in nature ć effusions extravessation of blood
(a) Left lateral side of trachea upper/3 size ¼ x ¼ cm.
(b) Left lateral side of trachea middle/3 size ¼ x ¼ cm.
(c) Left lateral side of trachea middle/3 on area ¼ cm below above injury size ¼ x ¼ cm.
(d) Right side front of neck underneath ext. injury No. 1 on antero lateral of trachea upper 1/3 size 1 cm x ½ cm above the level of hyridbone.
Further examination shows (trachea) congested areas in trachea ć fine white froath. There is haematoma of soft tissues near upper part of tachea over right side neck in middle/3. Upper part – left side neck also show such haemotoma in an area of 2 cm x ½ cm on left side neck. There was froathy blood which came out through upper respiratory tract ć fine froath when trachea was removed.”
The Medical Officer (PW-8) gave following opinion at the end
of the post mortem report (Ex. P-12): - “Opinion
Page 5
5
The cause of death is asphyxia as the result of injuries of the neck region as mentioned. All are ante mortem injuries. ………”
3. During investigation, the Investigating Officer interrogated
witnesses, arrested the accused (Ramesh), and on its conclusion,
submitted charge sheet against him for his trial in respect of
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
4. It appears that after giving necessary copies as required
under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed by the
Magistrate to the Court of Sessions on 24.7.1999. The learned
Sessions Judge registered Sessions Case No. 76 of 1999, and
after hearing the parties, on 11.10.1999, framed charge of
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against
accused/respondent Ramesh, to which he pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
5. On this, prosecution got examined PW-1 Prithviraj Singh,
(informant), PW-2 Om Prakash, PW-3 Ram Singh (both witnesses
of inquest report), PW-4 Raju (witness of the fact that Ramesh
slapped Sheela about half an hour before the incident), PW-5
Amba Lal (witness of arresting memo), PW-6 Constable Devinder
Singh (formal witness), PW-7 S.I. Bhagwan Singh (Investigating
Page 6
6
Officer), PW-8, Dr. Viveka Nand (who conducted post mortem
examination), PW-9 Bablu (the boy with whom the deceased said
to had a friendship), PW-10 Meela (minor daughter of
accused/sister of the deceased), and PW-11 A.S.I. Mali Ram.
6. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused
under Section 313 CrPC, in reply to which he admitted that his
daughter Sheela died on 28.4.1999 at about 9.00 p.m. He also
told that the inquest report and memorandum of recovery of
Chunni/Dupatta of the deceased etc. were prepared. He further
admitted that he did scold his daughter Sheela (deceased) as
stated by PW-3 Ram Singh about twenty minutes before her
death. As to the rest of the evidence, he denied the same as
incorrect. At the end of his statement under Section 313 CrPC
the accused stated that after generator started, he saw his
daughter (Sheela) hanging from a hook of wooden beam (Balli).
He further stated that when knot was loosened, she was alive. He
stated that the deceased was given some water and when attempt
was made to take her to hospital, she died. As to the fact that
the deceased was given water, as stated by the accused, or that
she died on her way to the hospital, there is nothing on the
record to support the same.
Page 7
7
7. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found accused/
respondent Ramesh guilty of the charge, and convicted and
sentenced him under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life
and directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of which he
was required to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment. The
respondent was further convicted and sentenced under Section
201 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and
directed to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of which
he was required to undergo further three months’ rigorous
imprisonment.
8. Against said judgment and order dated 17.6.2000, passed
by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 76 of 1999,
appeal (D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 397 of 2000) was filed by
the convict before the High Court. The High Court, after hearing
the parties, allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and
sentence recorded by the trial court holding that the chain of
circumstances as against the convict was not complete to come
to the irresistible conclusion that the accused-respondent
committed murder of his daughter. Said order of the High Court
is challenged before us by the State.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
Page 8
8
the original record of the case.
10. It is an admitted fact on record that Sheela, daughter of the
accused-respondent, died on 28.4.1999, as is apparent from the
statement of accused recorded under Section 313 CrPC read with
the prosecution evidence, discussed above. Death of Sheela was
not natural is also admitted fact, and established on record, for
the reason that where the prosecution case is that she died due
to asphyxia by strangulation and throttling, the version of the
defence is that she died by hanging. In an appeal against
acquittal we have to examine the evidence on record to find out
whether prosecution has successfully proved or not that the
accused/respondent caused homicidal death of Sheela, as
suggested by it, and also as to whether two views – one taken by
the trial court and another by the High Court – were possible in
the present case or not as to the cause of death of the deceased.
11. We have already quoted above the ante mortem injuries
recorded in the autopsy report by PW-8 Dr. Viveka Nand. We
have also reproduced the opinion given by him at the end of the
autopsy report as to the cause of death. PW-8 has stated in his
report (Ex.P-12) dated 29.4.1999 that the deceased died of
Asphyxia as a result of injuries on the neck region, but he did
Page 9
9
not mention as to whether it was asphyxia due to strangulation
or hanging. But in his oral testimony he has stated that the
deceased had died due to injuries around her neck and
suffocation. He has further stated that on 19.5.1999 in response
to letter No. 1490 dated 3.5.1999 of Station House Officer,
Kalwad, he gave following reply to him: -
“After going through above mentioned post mortem report it is clear that there was no ligature mark around the neck.
Hence it is clarified that the above mentioned person did not die because of hanging. She died because of asphyxia as the result of pressure over neck.”
This report is exhibited as P-13 on the record proved by the
Medical Officer (PW-8) during his examination. There is no
suggestion in the cross-examination to PW-8 Dr. Viveka Nand
that cause of death could have been asphyxia due to hanging.
12. It is argued on behalf of the respondent that since the
deceased committed suicide by hanging herself with a
Chunni/Dupatta, and her body was brought down immediately
after the incident, as such, no ligature mark was found around
the neck, and it is a case of suicide by hanging.
Page 10
10
13. Hanging is a form of death, produced by suspending the
body with a ligature round the neck, the constricting force being
the weight of the body, or a part of the body weight. In other
words, the hanging is the ligature compression of the neck by the
weight of one’s body due to suspension.
14. According to Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology
(23rd Edition), “ligature mark depends on the nature and position
of ligature used, and the time of suspension of the body after
death. If the ligature is soft, and the body is cut down from the
ligature immediately after the death, there may be no mark…….”
15. ‘Strangulation’ is defined by Modi as “the compression of the
neck by a force other than hanging. Weight of the body has
nothing to do with strangulation. Ligature strangulation is a
violent form of death which results from constricting the neck by
means of a ligature or by any other means without suspending
the body. When constriction is produced by the pressure of the
fingers and palms upon the throat, it is called as throttling.
When strangulation is brought about by compressing the throat
with a foot, knee, bend of elbow, or some other solid substances,
it is known as mugging (strangle hold).” (emphasis supplied)
16. As to appearances due to asphyxia, Modi says: -
Page 11
11
“The face is puffy and cyanosed, and marked with petechiae. The eyes are prominent and open. In some cases, they may be closed. The conjunctivae are congested and the pupils are dilated. Petechiae are seen in the eyelids and the conjunctivae. The lips are blue. Bloody foam escapes from the mouth and nostrils, and sometimes, pure blood issues from the mouth, nose and ears, especially if great violence has been used. The tongue is often swollen, bruised, protruding and dark in colour, showing patches of extravasation and occasionally bitten by the teeth. There may be evidence of bruising at the back of the neck. The hands are usually clenched. The genital organs may be congested and there may be discharge of urine, faeces and seminal fluid.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. In ‘asphyxia’, according to Modi, “ligature is usually situated
above the thyroid cartilage, and the effect of its pressing the neck
in that situation is to force up the epiglottis and the root of the
tongue against the posterior wall of the pharynx. Hence, the
floor of the mouth is jammed against its roof, and occludes the
air passages,………..”
18. In the light of above, we have examined the observations of
PW-8 Dr. Viveka Nand in the autopsy report (Ex. P-12), prepared
by him at the time of post mortem examination. We have already
quoted above the ante mortem injuries and findings on the neck
dissection and also the opinion given by the Medical Officer. At
this stage, we think it relevant to mention here the observations
Page 12
12
made by the Medical Officer (PW-8) as to external appearances
mentioned in page one of the post mortem report, which disclose
– “Both eyes were semi open and looked like protruded, on opening eyes are reddish congested, mouth closed, lips and face along with nails show bluish discolouration, abdomen slightly distended, condition of pupils – both dilated”.
(emphasis supplied)
19. After carefully going through the medico legal evidence on
record, we are of the opinion that it was not a case where a view
could have been taken that the deceased died of hanging. There
was no reason to disagree with the opinion given by PW-8 Dr.
Viveka Nand (Ex. P-13) that the deceased had died of asphyxia as
a result of pressure over the neck. Though PW-10 Meela (minor
daughter of the accused) has stated that her elder sister’s body
was found hanging, but this witness was got declared hostile by
the prosecution, and trial court rightly disbelieved her statement,
for the reason that after losing her elder sister, she was not in a
position to lose her father.
20. We think it pertinent to refer here to the statement of PW-9
Bablu, who has stated that he knew Sheela (deceased) and they
wanted to marry. He further told that on 28.4.1999 between
8.00 to 8.15 p.m. he was talking with Sheela near the well. He
further told that accused Ramesh came there and threatened
Page 13
13
him of breaking his bones if he continued to meet Sheela. The
witness further narrated that Ramesh slapped Sheela. He
further told that Ramesh took Sheela to the house and thereafter
he did not know what happened, but at 10.30 p.m. he came to
know about the death of Sheela.
21. PW-4 Raju has corroborated the above statement. He stated
that he heard some noise on 28.4.1999 at 8.15 p.m. on his way
back from the field. He further told that when he reached near
well, he saw Sheela and Bablu talking and advised them to go to
their respective homes. Meanwhile accused Ramesh came and
slapped his daughter Sheela and took her to his house. He
further told that he did not know what had happened thereafter,
but at about 10.30 p.m. PW-1 Prithviraj Singh called him and
Bablu. Meanwhile, the police also reached there.
22. After carefully scrutinizing the evidence on record, as above,
we are convinced that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt on
the record that when accused Ramesh saw his daughter talking
to PW-9 Bablu, he got suddenly provoked and lost his power of
self-control, slapped her, took her inside the house, and caused
death of his daughter by strangulation and throttling. The
medical evidence clearly shows four ante mortem injuries on the
neck region and three around mouth of the deceased as
Page 14
14
mentioned in the autopsy report (Ex. P-12). On going through
the reports Ex. P-12 and P.13 read with oral testimony of
witnesses, discussed above, we have no hesitation in holding that
prosecution has successfully proved the charge of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section
304 Part I against the accused/respondent Ramesh.
23. Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC provides that a culpable
homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the
power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes
the death of the person who gave the provocation. Needless to
say that following three conditions, as required under Exception
1 to Section 300 IPC, are also fulfilled in the present case: - a) that the provocation was not sought or voluntarily
provoked by the offender; b) that the provocation was not given by anything
done in obedience of the law; and c) that the provocation was not given by anything
done in lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
24. For the reasons, as discussed above, we are of the view that
the High Court has erred in law in holding that the deceased
could have hanged herself, and that the chain of circumstances
was not complete against the accused. Therefore, this appeal
deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and
the impugned judgment and order dated 4.1.2006, passed by the
Page 15
15
High Court in D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 397 of 2000, is set
aside. Accused-respondent Ramesh is convicted under Section
304 Part I IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten
years. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused
shall be set off. His conviction and sentence recorded by the trial
court shall stand modified accordingly.
25. The lower court record be sent back to make the respondent
serve out the remaining part of sentence.
………………….....…………J. [S.A. Bobde]
.………………….……………J. [Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi; November 20, 2015.