1  

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1181 OF 2011  

JAVED ABDUL RAJJAQ SHAIKH           ...  APPELLANT  

VERSUS  

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA              ... RESPONDENT  

J U D G M E N T    

K.M. JOSEPH, J.  

1. The appellant, calls in question, his conviction under  

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter  

referred to as ‘the IPC’, for short) by the High Court.  

Originally, the appellant was accused no.1 before the Trial  

Court. Accused nos. 2 to 4 were his parents and his brother.  

They were altogether charged with offence under Section 302  

read with Section 34 of the IPC. This is besides being  

charged under Section 498A of the IPC. The Trial Court

2  

convicted all the accused for offences under Section 302  

read with Section 34 and Section 498A of the IPC. On appeal  

filed by the appellant and the other accused, accused nos.  

2 to 4 stand acquitted of all the offences. The appellant  

has also been acquitted of the offence under Section 498A  

of the IPC. However, the High Court, by the impugned order,  

had convicted him for the offence under Section 302 of the  

IPC instead of Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.   

This is besides a fine.    

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the appellant  

and the other accused committed murder of the wife of the  

appellant. As already noticed, the charge was of committing  

murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.  

3. The father of the appellant lodged a complaint wherein  

it was inter alia alleged that the marriage of the appellant  

and his deceased wife took place prior to two years as per  

custom. Half tola gold remained to be provided. Due to  

poverty, he could not provide half tola gold.  The accused

3  

maintained the deceased properly for the period of first  

eight months.  Three months prior to the incident, the  

deceased disclosed to the complainant and his wife that all  

the accused were maltreating the deceased by insisting her  

to bring half tola gold, dress and Rs. 5,000/- for business  

of bakery. They insisted her to bring this from her parents  

and assaulted her. They did not provide food to her and  

maltreated her. She was threatened with murder if the demand  

was not fulfilled. So, deceased decided to stay with her  

father for two months.  Within two months, nobody from the  

accused came to receive her. The deceased disclosed about  

the maltreatment to his sister. His sister convinced the  

deceased and brought her to the house of the accused. Eight  

days prior to the incident, his sister informed him that  

accused Javed visited her house and demanded half tola gold,  

dress and the amount. On 10.03.2005, he received  

information by phone that deceased was serious and admitted  

to a hospital at Naldurg. The complaint activised the  

Police. Investigation was done. Charge-sheet was filed.  

Charges were framed, as already mentioned.  Rejecting the

4  

contentions of the appellant and other accused, the Trial  

Court convicted them. It was found that the deceased had  

been throttled. The evidence of the Doctor, supported the  

case of murder. The claim that it was a suicide by the  

deceased, was rejected.   

4. The High Court, however, found only the appellant  

guilty under Section 302 of the IPC.   

5. We have heard Shri D. N. Goburdhan, learned counsel for  

the appellant who appeared before us and also learned  

counsel for the State.  

6.  Counsel for the appellant would submit that the case  

of the prosecution was one of commission of offence under  

Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was the case  

of the prosecution that all the accused together committed  

the act of murder. He would complain that in appeal, when  

the High Court found it fit to acquit accused nos.2 to 4,  

the accused cannot thereafter be convicted.  He drew our  

attention to the judgment of this Court in Sawal Das v. State

5  

of Bihar1  and Sukhram s/o Ramratan v. State of Madhya  

Pradesh2.  

7. He would submit that when the prosecution failed to  

establish the guilt of accused nos.2 to 4, in the  

circumstances of this case, it must be taken that  

prosecution has also failed to establish the case against  

the appellant as it would be the case under Section 302  

simpliciter. He would submit that it was a case where the  

deceased had taken her own life. Appellant and her brother  

had married around the same time. Two years into the  

marriage, the appellant and his late wife/deceased were not  

blessed with a child. On the other hand, a child was born  

to his brother. This caused frustration, and finally, led  

the deceased to take the extreme step.  

8. Next, he would contend that the incident took place and  

the post-mortem was conducted allegedly on 10.03.2005.  

However, the report is prepared allegedly only on  

25.08.2005. Learned counsel posed the question as to the  

 1 (1974) 4 SCC 193  2 1989 Suppl.(1) SCC 214

6  

possibility that the post-mortem report, in fact, may be  

related to somebody else. In this regard, he drew our  

attention to the deposition of the father of the deceased.  

Father of the deceased had deposed that it was true that  

the marriage of the appellant and the deceased was performed  

happily and there was no quarrel between the spouses. He  

had also deposed that the custom of jumaki was followed.  

That some jumaki was performed in the house of the appellant  

and some jumaki was performed in his house. Further, he has  

stated as follows:  

“It is true that there are four rooms in  

the house of accused. It is true that accused  

Nos.1 and 4 were using separate bed room in  

the house. It is true that within six months  

from the marriage, when ever Sultana visited  

to my house, she told me that I had performed  

her marriage in proper house and she is happy  

in the house of accused. It is true that my  

daughter was co-operative and helpful  

natured girl.”  

“It is true that when Sultana came to my  

house for Ramzan’ festival, that time,  

Sultana told me that I should take her in the  

house of accused and there is no  

entertainment in my house.”  

7  

9. He would further point out that reversing the verdict  

of the Trial Court, the High Court has acquitted the  

appellant as also the other accused of the charge under  

Section 498A of the IPC. This means that the appellant was  

not found guilty of cruelty under the said provision. It  

was, therefore, wholly illogical and not warranted by the  

evidence to convict the appellant under Section 302 of the  

IPC. The inconsistency between the inquest report and the  

post-mortem report was highlighted and it was submitted  

that it has not received due consideration. He would submit  

that the external injuries which were noted in the inquest  

panchanama in respect of swelling of the head, ligature mark  

of rope to neck, injuries to thigh and back are not noted  

by the Doctor in the post-mortem report. He complains that  

the Trial Court has got over this by merely finding that  

in a case of difference of injuries between the inquest  

panchnama and the post-mortem report, the post-mortem  

report will prevail over the inquest panchnama. He reminds  

that the post-mortem report has been prepared after more  

than five months from the date on which the post-mortem was

8  

allegedly performed. He would submit that when doubts were  

established, the appellant should have been the beneficiary  

of doubts. He would further submit that if an adult person  

is throttled, there would be resistance and the resistance  

would be manifested. There is no evidence of any such  

resistance. All this points to the deceased having  

committed suicide. He further points out that as noted by  

the Court itself, it was the appellant who took the deceased  

to the hospital. Had the appellant been the culprit, he  

would have destroyed the body and certainly not taken the  

person to the hospital.        

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State supported  

the judgment passed by the High Court. He would point out  

that as regards the discrepancy in the date of preparation  

of the post-mortem report, questions have been put in the  

examination of P.W.1 doctor and answers elicited. There was  

a valid explanation which was the non-availability of one  

of the doctors. He further pointed out that the provisional

9  

report was given on the date of the post-mortem, i.e., on  

10.03.2005.    

THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT  

11.  The trial court has accepted that the following  

circumstances stood proved against the appellant and other  

accused:    

(1) Motive;  

(2) Custodial death of the deceased;  

(3) Non-disclosure of death by the appellant to the     

complainant(father of the deceased);  

(4) False evidence of accused of hanging;  

(5) Inquest panchnama;  

(6) Spot panchnama.  

12. As regards motive, the trial court relied on the  

evidence of PW 3 that all the accused were insisting on the  

deceased to bring half tola gold which remained to be  

provided by the time of marriage besides one choice dress  

and Rs.5000/- for Bakery business.  The appellant  

reiterated his demand and repeated his threat to kill

10  

deceased if the demands were not met after eight days of  

her return to his house.  The trial court also placed  

reliance on PW 4, the aunt of the deceased in this regard.   

It is after the threat mentioned above that the deceased  

died after 8 to 10 days.  It is found that medical evidence  

showed that the death is caused by throttling.  All the  

accused by their joint act -one by pressing her neck, one  

by catching hold of her hand, another by catching hold of  

her leg and one by pressing her leg killed her.  There is  

medical evidence to prove violence by killing her by  

throttling by pressing her neck.  As the demands made by  

the accused were not fulfilled, in furtherance of common  

intention, the appellant’s wife was killed.  All the  

accused were residing in the same house.  They participated  

in the crime and brought the body before the doctor saying  

she hanged herself.  Therefore, motive to kill is clearly  

established. There is no evidence to prove that PW-4 was  

at the house.   

11  

13. Exhibit 24 is enlisted to show that the appellant  

brought the dead body before the doctor. Evidence of the  

complainant (PW-3) and PW-4 is referred to show that the  

deceased was residing with all the accused in the house.   

When it is noticed that death took place due to throttling,  

then the accused must prove as to how she died.  While  

explaining in the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,  

none of the accused explained about the death of the  

deceased.  The point as to custodial death was found  

established.  

14. As regards non-disclosure of death by the accused to  

the complainant, it is found that PW-3 complainant has  

deposed that about 8.00 A.M. on the date of the incident,  

he came to know from Isaq, son of PW-4 by telephone from  

Solapur. The accused had not disclosed about the death to  

the complainant. PW-4 has not deposed that she was  

intimated.  The accused seemed to have kept mum after the  

death and has not reported to complainant and other  

relatives. Also, the Court goes on to find that a false

12  

statement was made regarding the death of the deceased by  

hanging which is contrary to the medical evidence.  

15. In regard to the inquest panchnama, it is stated that  

it shows external injury like rope mark at neck, swelling  

to head, injury to thigh and back as well as two teeth from  

the front side are broken and blood was oozing from the jaw.  

It is the case of the accused that the injuries noted on  

the thigh, back and swelling to head and ligature mark of  

rope to neck is not noted in the post-mortem in Exhibit 22.  

Therefore, there is a conflict between the inquest  

panchnama and the post-mortem report. The trial Court goes  

on to find that the external injuries noted in the inquest  

panchnama as noted above, were not noted by the doctor in  

the post-mortem which is official. It is concluded that when  

there is difference of injuries in the inquest panchnama  

and the post-mortem, post mortem will prevail over the  

inquest panchnama because panchnama (witnesses) are not  

experts like doctors.  Accused cannot get benefit of  

inconsistencies. Expert evidence based on scientific

13  

method will prevail over knowledge of ignorant men in that  

field. It was found that PW-1 was an eminent doctor and in  

the last five years, he had done many post-mortems and he  

was treated as an expert man. Thereafter, the trial Court  

also relied upon the spot panchnama.  The spot panchnama  

was effected on the very day of incident i.e. on 10.3.2005.  

One rope of nylon was seized. The spot of incident was one  

of the rooms situated in the house of the accused. It is  

having two-metre height wall. The height of the room is  

5-feet 10-inches. The photograph of the deceased, the  

panchnama and the photograph of the place of the incident  

proved by PW-5 led the Court to hold that the height of the  

room is such that it was not probable for any person having  

normal height to hang in that room and normal height of the  

man is 5 feet or more. The Court further proceeds to find  

that the F.I.R. is late but goes on to hold that merely  

because the F.I.R. is late, it does not mean that the case  

is false. Having referred to the circumstances, the Court  

also found that the complaint was filed by the complainant  

late on the next day at the night hours but the explanation

14  

of the complainant that due to death of his daughter, he  

was unhappy was found acceptable. Regarding the contention  

of the accused that it was a case of suicide as the deceased  

had not delivered a child whereas the wife of the fourth  

accused (sister-in-law) of the deceased had delivered a  

child and therefore, she was frustrated was found  

unacceptable. The deceased was only 20 years old.  At the  

age of 20 years, it could not be said that she cannot become  

pregnant in future.  It was found that it was nobody’s case  

that the deceased was having some problem having a child.  

There is no case of any medical treatment.    

FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT  

16. This is a case entirely based on circumstantial  

evidence. The deceased was living in her matrimonial home.  

She was living with her husband.  As regards the case under  

Section 498A IPC is concerned, the High Court finds that  

there is reason to infer that the deceased was leading a  

happy married life.  The following part of the cross

15  

examination of the PW 3, father of the deceased is relied  

upon:   

“It is true that there are four rooms in  

the house of accused. It is true that  

accused Nos. 1 and 4 were using separate bed  

room in the house. It is true within six  

months from her marriage, whenever Sultana  

visited to my house, she told me that I had  

performed her marriage in proper house and  

she is happy in the house of husband. It is  

true that my daughter was co-operative and  

helpful natured girl.”  

“It is true that when Sultana came to my  

house for Ramzan’ festival, that time,  

Sultana told me that I should take her in  

the house of accused and there is no  

entertainment in my house.”  

17. On the basis of the aforesaid, the High Court finds that  

the same speaks of a different story. The deceased expressed  

her desire to return to the place of her husband (appellant)  

at a point earlier than contemplated by her father. It is  

found that there was ample admission on the part of the  

father of the deceased and his sister that the parents did  

not take any legal steps such as lodging complaint with the  

police station nor did they call elderly and respectable  

relatives for a meeting and inviting accused persons to

16  

explain their conduct. The High Court found it difficult  

to believe that there was a persistent demand from all the  

four accused.  In view of certain admissions, PW 4 aunt of  

the deceased was found unreliable.  The High Court found  

that it was difficult to believe that all the four accused  

were persistently demanding gold or amount and for  

pressurising the deceased or that they were subjecting her  

to ill treatment such as physical beating or starvation.   

It is thereafter that the case of the appellant was found  

to stand on a different footing.  The deposition of PW 4  

is noted, namely, “thereafter after 8 days Javed accused  

came to my house at Solapur.  He told me that his  

father-in-law has not provided gold, cloth and money till  

now and if it is not provided, he will kill sultana and thus  

by giving the threat he went away.”  The conveying of the  

aforesaid message to him by his sister on telephone gave  

assurance to the deposition of PW4.  If at all, it was found  

that there was pressure upon the deceased for complying with  

the demands, it was from appellant alone.  As regards the  

circumstances relied upon by the trial Court in regard to

17  

their motive, the High Court proceeds to find that the  

motive is not proved as against accused 2 to 4 in as strong  

manner as against the appellant.  As far as the custodial  

death is concerned, it was found from Exhibit 24 that the  

deceased died sometime before 7.15 a.m.  Post-mortem was  

performed at 3.30 p.m..  Therefore, it can be ascertained  

that the death ensued 12 hours earlier sometime about    

3.30 a.m.  Support from P.W.3 is drawn to conclude that the  

two newly married couple were using separate bed room which  

allowed the accused 2 to 4 to escape from the allegation  

of custodial death against them at that time of the day and  

only the couple is bound to be in the bed room.  Therefore,  

custodial death was proved only against the appellant.   

Referring to the prosecutor’s argument based on the  

injuries of the deceased that it was not the husband alone  

but others as held, was not found the only possible  

inference.  Breaking of the front teeth was indicative of  

some violence.  The High Court proceeds to find that a  

possibility cannot be ruled out that the victim was found  

unguarded and last but not the least, the impression injury

18  

on the thigh and ankle cannot be ruled out, even though the  

sole assailant tried to pin down the victim by riding on  

the person of the victim and putting pressure on the thighs  

by his knees and on the ankles by his feet.  It is found  

that although admissions are obtained from the doctor that  

such injuries are possible if the victim is gripped by  

someone else such admission is to be read only to the extent  

of medical opinion, that is, the injuries are possible, if  

the pressure is put on the thighs or ankles gripped.  It  

was found an inference of involvement of more than one  

accused on the basis of medical evidence, is a matter of  

imagination and therefore somewhat risky.  Lastly, the  

statement of the appellant when he had admitted the deceased  

to the hospital that he had brought up the deceased for  

treatment that she had hanged herself in an attempt to  

commit suicide, was used against the appellant as it was  

found to be settled legal position that false information  

by the deceased who is obliged to offer explanation for  

death is a circumstance which strengthens the chain of   

circumstantial evidence.  It is accordingly that the

19  

appeal was partly allowed.  His conviction under Section  

498-A IPC was set aside, so was his conviction under Section  

302 read with Section 34 IPC and he stood convicted under  

Section 302 IPC alone.  The appeal filed by the other three  

accused was allowed.  

THE POST MORTEM REPORT  

18.  The injuries noted in paragraph 17 of the Post Mortem  

report are as follows:   

“Bruising and ecchymosis present on both  

sides on neck from center to laterally on both  

sides of neck about 7 cm x 1 cm.  

1. Abrasion (crescentric) present on left  side extending from center to lateral  

about 5 cm long.  

2. Pale pressure mark present over both legs  ante collaterally over ankle region about  

7 cm x 1 cm.  

3. Contusion of upper lip 3 cm x 2 cm.”  

Under paragraph 20 which deals with injuries to the Thorax  

region, the following injuries have been noted:  

“A] Walls, ribs, cartilages/ a & b are  

noted as normal.  

B] Pleura.  

C] Larynx, trachea and bronchi

20  

1. Subcutaneous tissue over both  

lateral aspect of both side swollen and  

subcutaneous haemorrhage present.  

2. Both sternomastoid muscle crushed  

and severe haemorrhage present beneath  

it.  

3. Thyroid cartilage crushed laterally  

on both sides more on left side.  

4. Cricoid cartilage crushed on both  

sides.  

5. Multiple small clots of blood seen  

around the laryangeal cartilages.  

 D] Right Lung-Both lung congested.  

 E] Left Lung – with petechiae and exuding  

dark blood on section.  

 G] Heart with weight – Left side contained  

little blood, Right side of the heart  

contained full of dark fluid blood.  

 Bucal cavity, teeth gongue: Upper left  

central incisor partly broken and right  

central incisor totally broken within  

bleeding from gums.”  

Stomach contents were noted as empty.  

OPINION AS TO THE CAUSE  

19. It is stated that Dr. I.C. Kolle and Dr. A.I. Syed have  

done the post-mortem on 10.03.2005. Under the opinion as  

to the probable cause of death, it is written Acute Cardio

21  

respiratory arrest.  Secondary to acute asphyxia secondary  

to throttling.  The report is signed dated 25.08.2005.  In  

the last page it is stated, forwarded to the police custody  

and the date is shown as 10.03.2005.  

DEPOSITION OF P.W.1 - THE DOCTOR WHO CARRIED OUT THE POST  

MORTEM  

20. PW.1 is Dr. I.C. Kolle aged 32 years.  He states that  

he has carried out nearly 32 post-mortems during his service  

period.  On 10.03.2005 he received the dead body of the  

deceased in this case from the police station.  He started  

doing post-mortem at about 3.30 p.m. and completed by about  

4.45 p.m..  The inquest panchnama was given to him by the  

concerned police station.  He noticed eyes semi open,  

tongue within mouth which has been noted at paragraph 13  

of the post-mortem note.  He noticed 4 injuries on the dead  

body and those were noted as surface wounds and the injuries  

are at paragraph No.17 of the post-mortem note.  He further  

deposed that these are surface injuries and ante-mortem  

injuries.  These injuries occurred due to throttling by

22  

pressing neck by fingers and palm.  Thereafter, he noted  

the injuries which we have already extracted.  He prepared  

the note.  It is in his handwriting and signed by him.     

Dr. Syed was with him as colleague and he also signed on  

the post-mortem note.  Injuries 1 and 2 noted in paragraph  

17 are corresponding to the internal injury of Larynx,  

trachea and bronchi noted in paragraph 20 are only probable  

by pressing the neck by using fingers and palm.  These  

injuries are sufficient to cause the death of the deceased.   

The external injury, namely No.4, that is contusion of upper  

lip is corresponding to injury to teeth and tongue.  These  

two injuries are probable by pressing the mouth by hand.   

Paragraph 7 and 8 of the PW1 deposition:    

“Injury no. 3 noted in para no. 17  

occurred to both legs are probable by  

caught hold of both the legs with pressure  

of hand.  

Injury nos. 1 to 4 are probable at once,  

if one person caught hold the legs by  

pressing with his hands of that deceased,  

one person if press the mouth by his hand  

and another person press the neck by his  

hand and all these persons acted so at one  

time, to deceased, injury nos. 1 to 4 are  

probable at one time.”   

23  

He agrees with the proposition given by Modi’s Medical  

Jurisprudence, 22nd edition at page no.333 “Bruises or  

contrusion injuries which are caused by compression.  He  

also agrees with the following statement contained in Modi  

on Medical Jurisprudence 22nd Edition:   

“Suicidal strangulation is not very  

common, though sometimes cases are met  

with. In these cases, some contrivancem is  

always made to keep the ligature tight  

after insensibility supervenes. This is  

done by twisting a cord several times round  

the neck and then tying a knot, which is  

usually single and in front or at the side  

or back of the neck, by twisting a cord  

tightly by means of a stick, stone or some  

other solid material, or by tightening the  

ends of a cord by tying them to the hands  

or feet or to a peg in a wall or to the leg  

of bed. In such cases, injuries to the deep  

structures of the neck and marks of  

violence on other parts of the body are, as  

a rule, absent.”  

He agrees with the said proposition.  He says according to  

him in suicidal death there are no marks of violence and  

in homicidal death there are marks of violence.  He also

24  

agrees with the following proposition from the work Modi’s  

Medical Jurisprudence at page 270:  

“3. Saliva- Dribbling out of the mouth down  

on the chin and chest.  

4. Neck – Stretched and clongated in fresh  

bodies.   

7. Ligature mark – Oblique, non-continuous  

placed high up in the neck between the chin  

and the larynx, the base of the groove or  

furrow being hard, yellow and parchment-  

link.  

10. Injury to the muscles of the neck- Rare.  

14. Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the  

face, neck and other parts of the body –  

Usually not present.”  

21. He states that the above features can be noticed in a  

case of hanging and he agrees with the same proposition.   

While doing post-mortem he deposed he has not noticed any  

of the above symptoms on the dead body and it is not noted  

in the post-mortem as it is not seen.  He definitely opines  

that in the given case, the death occurred due to throttling  

by external violence and it is homicidal death.  He goes  

on to depose that injury No.2 and 3 in column 20 of the post  

mortem are only to be noticed in case of homicidal death.   

And these are marks of violence and thus cannot be noticed

25  

in case of hanging and suicidal death.  He issued Exh. 23  

provisional death certificate immediately to the police.   

It is in the hand writing of Dr. Syed.  Both he and Dr. Syed  

have signed it.  In cross examination he would state as  

follows:   

The dead body of the deceased was brought at about 7 to  

7.30 a.m.  After checking the deceased was declared  

dead and information was given to the police.  He denies  

that when deceased was brought she was alive.  He denies  

that he was confused and the exact time of the death was  

not mentioned.  Rigor Mortis was stated to develop 3  

hour after death and completes within 12 hours.  He has  

not preserved the viscera.  According to him Police  

Commissioner immediately demanded provisional death  

certificate.  He denies that he issued the post-mortem  

report on 25.08.2005.  The post-mortem note was already  

prepared and one doctor was not available to sign it and  

therefore after signing it, it was issued.  He denies  

that he has prepared on 25.08.2005.  He further denies  

that when the body of deceased was brought, it had

26  

elongated neck.  He states it is untrue to say that  

Injury No.1 in para 17 of the post-mortem note can appear  

in case of hanging also.  Bruises and ecchymoses are  

sometimes seen in case of hanging also in the groove of  

the ligature mark.  He deposed that it is not true that  

Injury No.3 in para No.17 of the PM note is not at all  

possible to occur when the body is in hanging condition  

and some persons by catching one leg and another leg are  

trying to remove the dead body.  He says in further  

cross examination that it is true that Injury No.1 in  

para 20(c) of post-mortem note is probable in the case  

of hanging.  As far as Injury No.2 in Para 20(c), he  

states that it is not true that Injury No.2 occur in the  

case of hanging.  He also deposed that it is not true  

to say that in the case of hanging thyroid cartilage may  

be crushed.  He has not seen nail mark and scratch of  

nail mark on the face or neck of the deceased.  He  

deposed that these types of marks used to be present in  

the case of throttling but it is not necessary to be  

present.   

27  

Injury No.5 at 20(c) occur in the case of hanging.   

Lungs getting congested is common in hanging as well as  

throttling.  He further says that it is not true to say  

that in the case of hanging when person is struggling  

in that case teeth may break.  He further says it is not  

true to say that saliva was coming out from the mouth  

of the deceased and relatives were cleaning it.  He has  

not seen whether the face of the deceased was pale or  

not.  In the case of strangulation by rope or ‘Dupatta’,  

the ligature mark may be noticed around the neck.  While  

doing post-mortem he has noticed injuries at the head  

and back of the deceased.  It is true that in the case  

of hanging, the eyes used to close or used to remain in  

semi close condition.  It is true that in the case of  

hanging fracture of larynx and trachea - often found  

also hyoidbone.  It is true he says that the deceased  

had not faced fracture to larynx, trachea and hyoidbone.   

In the case of hanging fracture by larynx and trachea  

– very rare and that too in judicial hanging.  He denies  

that her stomach may remain empty due to vomiting.  In

28  

cross examination for the 4th accused, he states inter  

alia as follows:  

In case of hanging and in case of throttling pressure  

on neck is common factor.  In the case of throttling  

by hand, a person can resist that throttling.  In case  

of resistance there will be mark of nail on neck.  The  

person who is facing throttling when one person is  

pressing the mouth and other person is catching the  

legs by using pressure of his hands he will resist by  

banging the hand on earth in that case there will be  

injuries to hands.  It is probably if the legs are  

caught hold by hand, then it is possible to occur  

injury at posterior side of the leg.  In post-mortem,  

no-injury marks on hands are noted.  And also no  

injury marks at posterior side of leg is noted.  He  

deposed that it is not true that the injuries in para  

17 are possible by accident and by assault also.  He  

also says that it is not true to say that the injuries  

shown in in para 20 are possibly by hanging.  Ligature  

mark are occurred on the basis of smoothness and

29  

hardness of the things used for occurring of the  

ligature mark.  It is true that if the smooth article  

like ‘Dupatta of Malmal’ used for hanging then there  

will be no ligature mark on the leg.  He states it is  

not true that Injury Nos. 1 to 4 noted in paragraph  

17 are probable to occur one by one and not at once.   

It is not true that in case of hanging injury No.3 is  

possible by coming into contact of legs with stool and  

table etc.  If only external injury No.1 and 2  

occurred as shown in paragraph 17 and immediately  

medical aid is provided he may survive.  In the case  

of throttling by hands by using fingers and palm there  

cannot be fracture of larynx.  In re-examination he  

said that in the case of strangulation by hand fracture  

of larynx and trachea is not necessary to be occurred  

even though it is said in column No.12 of strangulation  

at page No.270 (apparently in Modi’s work).   

According to him, fracture of larynx and trachea used  

to occur in strangulation but in the case of throttling  

by hand such fracture cannot occur.  By using hard and

30  

blunt object like stone and stick if the strangulation  

is caused, in that case fracture of larynx and trachea  

often found also hyoidbone.     

22. The differences between hanging and strangulation have  

been highlighted by Modi on Medical Jurisprudence and  

Toxicology, 25th Edition, as follows:   

       Hanging                     Strangulation          

1. Most suicidal.    1. Mostly homicidal.  

2. Face-Usual pale and   2. Face-Congested, livid and  

petechiae rare.   marked with petechiae.  

3. Saliva-Dribbling out of  3. Saliva-No such dribbling  

mouth down on the chin   

and chest.  

4. Neck-Stretched and    4. Neck-Not so.  

elongated in fresh bodies.  

5. External signs of asphyxia5. External signs of asphyxia,  

usually not well marked. very well marked (minimal if     

death due to vasovagal and  

      carotid sinus effect.  

6. Ligature mark-Oblique,   6. Ligature mark-Horizontal or  

Non-continuous placed high transverse continuous, round  

Up in the neck between the the neck, low down in the neck  

Chin and the larynx, the  below the thyroid, the base of  

Base of the groove or furrow the groove or furrow being  

Being hard, yellow and   soft and reddish.  

Parachment-like.  

7. Abrasions and ecchymoses  7. Abrasions and ecchymoses round  

round about the edges of  about the edges of the ligature   

the ligature mark, rare.  Mark, common.  

31  

8. Subcutaneous tissues   8. Subcutaneous tissues under the  

Under the mark-White,  mark-Ecchymosed.  

Hard and glistening.  

9. Injury to the muscles of  9. Injury to the muscles of the neck-  

Neck-Rare.    Common.  

10. Carotid arteries,   10. Carotid arteries, internal coats  

Internal coats ruptured in ordinarily ruptured.  

11. Fracture of the larynx  11. Fracture of the larynx, trachea  

and trachea-Very rare and and hyoid bone.  

may be found that too in  

judicial hanging.  

12. Fracture-dislocation of   12. Fracture-dislocation of the   

the cervical vertebrae-  the cervical vertebrae-Rare.  

Common in judicial hanging.  

13. Scratches, abrasions and  13. Scratches, abrasions fingernail  

bruises on the face, neck marks and bruises on the face,   

and other parts of the body- neck and other parts of the body-  

Usually not present.  Usually present.  

14. No evidence of sexual   14. No evidence of sexual assault.  

Assault.  

15. Emphysematous bullae on   15. Emphysematous bullae on the  

Surface of the lungs-  surface of the lungs - May be  

Not present.    Present.  

23. As to what is the distinction between strangulation and  

throttling is also dealt within the self-same work:    

“Definition-Strangulation is defined 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.

32  

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).  

A form of strangulation, known as Bansdola, is  

sometimes practised in northern India.  In the form,  

a strong bamboo or lathi (wooden club) is placed across  

the throat and another across the back of the neck.   

These are strongly fastened t one end.  A rope is  

passed round the other end, which is bound together,  

and the unfortunate victim is squeezed to death.  The  

throat is also pressed by placing a lathi or bamboo  

across the front of the neck and standing with a foot  

on each of lathi or bamboo.  

Garrotting is another method that was used by thugs  

around 1862 in India.  A rope or a loincloth is  

suddenly thrown over the head and quickly tightened  

around neck.  Due to sudden loss of consciousness,  

there is no struggle.  The assailant is then able to  

tie the ligature.”  

24. It is necessary in this case to look at the post-mortem  

and also the evidence of the medical officer P.W.1.  In the  

light of the differences between hanging and strangulation,  

in a case of hanging, saliva will dribble down the mouth  

down on the chin and the chest whereas in a case of  

strangulation, there will be no such dribbling.  P.W.1,  

Medical Officer was specifically asked with respect to  

Saliva.  He has stated that while doing post-mortem he has

33  

not noticed saliva.  In cross examination also he states  

that it is not true to say that Saliva was coming out of  

the mouth of the deceased and relatives were cleaning it.   

In the case of hanging, the neck will be stretched,  

elongated in fresh bodies while it is not so in the case  

of strangulation.  P.W.1 has stated that he has not noticed  

that the neck was stretched and elongated in the case of  

the deceased.   

25.   P.W.1, it is true, has opined that in the case of  

hanging, eyes used to close or used to remain in semi closed  

condition.  It may be noted at this juncture that paragraph  

13 of the post-mortem wherein it is stated eyes semi open,  

tongue within mouth.   

External Injury No.1 in paragraph 17 is stated to be  

bruising and ecchimoysses present on both side of neck about  

7 cm. x 1 cm..  In this connection the deposition of P.W.1  

doctor is relevant:   

“5.  Injury nos. 1 and 2 noted in para  

no.17 are corresponding to internal injuries  

of larynx trachea and bronchi noted in para  

20 under the head thorax in PM note Ex.22.   

these injuries noted in PM note are only

34  

probably by pressing the neck by using  

fingers and palm.  These injuries are  

sufficient to cause the death of deceased in  

ordinary course of nature.”  

26. Abrasion and Ecchymosses round about the edges of  

ligature mark is stated to be common in case of  

strangulation.  Further P.W. 1 deposes that upper external  

injury No.4, that is contusion, on upper lip noted in  

paragraph 17 is corresponding injury to teeth and tongue  

which is described in paragraph 21.  He further states that  

these two injuries are probable for pressing mouth by hand.   

27.  Injury to the muscles of the neck is stated to be  

common in case of strangulation whereas in a case of hanging  

injury to the muscles of the neck is rare.  In this  

connection it is to be noticed that in paragraph 20 of the  

post-mortem, it is stated that both sternomastoid muscle  

crushed and severe haemorrhage present beneath it.  In this  

connection, it is relevant to understand what is  

sternomastoid muscle and where it is located.  The  

Sternocleidomastoid muscle is also known as sternomastoid

35  

muscle.  It is one of the largest and most superficial  

cervical muscle located in the superficial layer on the side  

of the neck.  It has its origin from the middle portion of  

the clavical and the manubrium sternix. Manubrium sternix  

is upper most portion of the sternum bone.  The post mortem  

finding in this case is to the effect that sternomashoid  

muscle is crushed and there is severe haemorrhage present  

beneath it.  This feature is compatible with the case being  

one of strangulation as injury to the muscle of the neck  

is rare in hanging.  Fracture – dislocation of the cervical  

vertebrae is common in judicial hanging whereas it is rare  

in the case of strangulation.  The post-mortem result does  

not show that there is fracture or dislocation of cervical  

vertebrae.  The cervical vertebrae are the vertebrae of the  

neck immediately below the skull.  Neither in the  

post-mortem nor in the deposition of PW 1 is anything  

brought out to show that there is either fracture or  

dislocation of the cervical vertebrae.  The absence of the  

same also probablises clearly the case of prosecution that  

this is a case of strangulation or rather throttling.   

36  

28. It is no doubt true that in the case of hanging,  

fracture of the larynx and trachea is very rare and that  

too it may be found in judicial hanging.  On the other hand,  

fracture on the larynx, trachea and hyoidbone indicates  

strangulation.  P.W.1 doctor states in cross examination  

thus say that it is true that the deceased had not faced  

fracture to the larynx, trachea or hyoidbone.  P.W. 1 in  

the re-examination explains the absence of fracture to  

larynx, trachea and hynoidbone in the following terms:   

In case of strangulation by hand fracture of  

that larynx and trachea is not necessary to be  

occurred and the distinction between hanging  

and strangulation and the general tendencies of  

hanging and strangulation are given.    

29. He further states according to him, in the case of  

throttling by hand, fracture of the larynx and trachea  

cannot occur.  It occurs in strangulation.  He deposed

37  

that by using hand and blunt object like stone and stick,  

if strangulation is caused, in that case fracture of the  

larynx, trachea and hyoidbone have been found also.  We  

have noticed that throttling is constriction produced by  

pressure of fingers and palm upon throat.  In ligature  

strangulation it can be either by leg or by any other means.   

Mugging is when strangulation is brought about with the  

foot, knee, bend of elbow or some other solid substances.   

The deposition of the medical officer is not inconsistent  

with the distinction between throttling and strangulation.   

In this case the choice is between finding death by hanging  

or by throttling.  We have noticed that among the injuries,  

Injury No.3 in paragraph 20 is thyroid cartilage is crushed  

laterally on both side on left side.  The further injury  

which is noted is cricoid cartilage and it is also crushed  

on both side.  P.W. 1 doctor has deposed that Injury No.2  

and 3 in paragraph 20, namely, both sternomastoid muscle  

being crushed and severe haemorrhage being present beneath  

it and Injury No.3 thyroid cartilage being crushed  

literally on both sides on left side are only noticed in

38  

the case of homicidal death.  He has further deposed that  

these are marks of violence and they cannot be noticed in  

the case of hanging and suicidal death.  We have already  

noticed that injury to the muscle of the neck, is only rarely  

found in the case of hanging whereas injury to the muscle  

of the neck is common in strangulation and that the  

sternomastoid muscle is indeed a muscle of the neck.   

30. One of the contentions of the appellant is if there is  

a case of throttling or any other form of strangulation,  

the victim would undoubtedly resist.  The resistance would  

produce struggling and there would be marking of nail on  

the neck and face.  P.W. 1 has indeed deposed that he has  

not seen nail marks and scratches of nail marks on the face  

and the neck of the deceased.  In the work by Modi,  

scratches, abrasion fingernail and bruises on the face,  

neck and other parts of the body are usually present in the  

case of strangulation.  P.W. 1 would however, state that  

these types of marks used to be present in the case of  

throttling but it is not necessary to be present.  He also

39  

further says that bruising is itself indicate, it is reddish  

brown colour.    

31. Having considered the conclusion in the post-mortem  

and the deposition of medical officer and analysed in the  

light of the principles laid down in the work Modi’s Medical  

Jurisprudence and Toxicology, let us also appreciate the  

other evidence on record.   

32. Both the courts have noted from the spot panchnama that  

the height of the room was just 5 ft. 10 inches.  A  

conclusion has been reached that the theory of hanging is  

incompatible by a person of normal height or even if the  

height is 5 ft. We see no reason to take a different view  

in this regard.  This also strengthens the case of the  

prosecution based on findings in the post-mortem and the  

deposition of the medical officer.   

33. There is a case for the appellant that it was the  

appellant who took the deceased to the hospital.  This is

40  

true but the further inference sought to be drawn by the  

appellant that it means that the appellant was innocent and  

had he not been innocent he would have not brought the body  

of the deceased to the hospital, is not true.  Having regard  

to the other evidence which we have already discussed  

pointing it to be a case of strangulation or rather  

throttling, apparently the appellant sought to build up a  

case of the deceased dying as a result of hanging.  In fact,  

in his questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he does not  

specifically set up a case of hanging as such.  He states  

in answer to question No.42 that all witnesses are speaking  

lie against us due to teaching of his father-in-law and  

Sunnabee (P.W.4).  In answer to question No.45 which was,  

do you want to say anything else about the case, he says  

it is a false case.   

34.  There remains the contention of the appellant that  

since the prosecution has set up a specific case and the  

said charge was under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC  

on the basis that appellant along with accused Nos.2 to 4

41  

together had committed the crime and once the High Court  

has acquitted accused No.2 to 4, it is not open to the High  

Court to convict the appellant under Section 302 IPC on the  

basis that the crime was committed by only him and therefore  

he was entitled to an acquittal.   

35.  In Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra3, four  

accused were charged for the murder of one Vishwanath.  The  

prosecution case inter alia was that there was a grudge  

against Vishwa Nath as he had helped Deoram Maruti Patil  

in getting acquittal in a murder case where relatives of  

the four accused were murdered.  The four accused were  

charged under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.   

They were all separately charged under Section 302 IPC.   

The Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused.  The State  

preferred an appeal to the High Court against acquittal  

under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.  No appeal was  

preferred against the order of acquittal under Section 302  

IPC.  The High Court dismissed the appeal against accused  

 3 AIR 1963 SC 1413

42  

1,3 and 4.  The High court, however, convicted the 2nd  

accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.  It is  

in this appeal by the 2nd accused that this Court proceeded  

to consider various situations which may arise and  

thereafter proceeded to held as follows:   

“8. But the present case falls outside the  

said three illustrations. The High Court  

gave conflicting findings. While it  

acquitted Accused 1, 3 and 4 under Section  

302, read with Section 34 of the Indian  

Penal Code, it convicted Accused 2 under  

Section 302, read with Section 34, of the  

said Code, for having committed the offence  

jointly with the acquitted persons. That is  

a legally impossible position. When  

accused were acquitted either on the ground  

that the evidence was not acceptable or by  

giving benefit of doubt to them, the result  

in law would be the same: it would mean that  

they did not take part in the offence. The  

effect of the acquittal of Accused 1, 3 and  

4 is that they did not conjointly act with  

Accused 2 in committing the murder. If they  

did not act conjointly with Accused 2,  

Accused 2 could not have acted conjointly  

with them. Realizing this mutually  

destructive findings of the High Court,  

learned counsel for the State attempted to  

sustain the finding of the High Court by  

persuading us to hold that if the said  

finding was read in the context of the whole  

judgment, it would be clear that the

43  

learned Judges meant to hold that persons  

other than the acquitted accused  

conjointly acted with the convicted  

accused. We have gone through the entire  

judgment carefully with the learned  

counsel. But the observations of the  

learned Judges as regards the “other  

participants” in the crime must in the  

context refer only to the “one or other of  

that said three acquitted accused  

participated in the offer he committed by  

Accused 2”. There is not a single  

observation in the judgment to indicate  

that persons other than the said accused  

participated in the offence, nor is there  

any evidence in that regard. We, therefore,  

hold that the judgment of the High Court  

cannot stand. We are satisfied that on the  

findings arrived at by the High Court, the  

conviction of Accused 2 is clearly wrong.”  

36. In similar vein is the view taken in the judgment of  

this Court in Sawal Das v. State of Bihar 4 wherein the  

appellant, his father and his step mother were accused of  

committing an offence charged under Section 302  

simpliciter.  The appellant, his father, driver and 8  

others were charged under Section 201 IPC.  The appellant’s  

step mother was charged under Section 302 read with Section  

109 IPC.  Though the trial Court convicted the appellant,  

 4 1974 (4) SCC 193

44  

his father and step mother under Section 302 read with  

Section 34 IPC which was the amended charge by the trial  

Court, the High court acquitted the appellant, his father  

and step mother under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC  

but instead found the appellant guilty under Section 302  

simpliciter.  This is besides finding him guilty under  

Section 201 IPC but without separate sentence against the  

appellant.  This Court considered the circumstantial  

evidence.  It referred to the judgment of this Court in  

Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra(supra) and  

held as follows:     

“14. Mr. Mulla, appearing for the  

appellant, has also drawn our attention  

to K.G. Patil v. State of Maharashtra [AIR  

1963 SC 1413] . This Court held there that,  

when two out of three accused persons, each  

having been charged under Section 302 read  

with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, were  

acquitted, it must be assumed that the two  

acquitted persons did not participate in  

the commission of the offence at all. It is  

contended that the natural result of this  

view is that the particular act of the  

individual accused which brought about the  

death of the murdered person must be  

established beyond doubt before he is

45  

singly and separately convicted under  

Section 302, Indian Penal Code  

simpliciter.”  

But it is relevant to notice paragraph 17 and 18 of the  

judgment and the same read as under:  

“17. We think that, upon the facts of this  

case, there could be a reasonable doubt as  

to whether Section 34 IPC could be applied  

to convict any of the three accused persons  

of murder. After excluding the application  

of Section 34 IPC to the case, the evidence  

does not also appear to us to prove  

conclusively that the appellant must have  

either throttled the deceased or done some  

other act, quite apart from the acts of his  

father and step-mother, which brought  

about the death. This result follows from  

the totality of evidence and the  

presumption from the non-production of  

Geeta Kurmini which destroys the value of  

the evidence, which weighed so much with  

the High Court, that the appellant was  

doing something like pushing or taking the  

murdered woman inside her room at the time  

when she was last seen alive.  

“18. The trial court and the High Court,  

relying on the evidence of some bleeding of  

the body of the deceased, admitted by the  

appellant to have been carried in the car  

to the burning ghat, and the absence of  

evidence of death caused by burning, came  

to the conclusion that the appellant must

46  

have throttled the deceased. This was pure  

conjecture after eliminating the defence  

case of burning by accident. If it had been  

a case of throttling only, it would be  

difficult to explain the cries of murdered  

woman for help which were heard by  

witnesses on the road unless we assume that  

the murdered woman cried out, as she may  

have done, before the hands which choked  

her were placed on her throat. Therefore,  

although we may hold, as we do, that this  

must be a case of murder, it is not possible  

for us to find conclusively that it was a  

case of throttling and of nothing else or  

that the person who could have throttled or  

done some other act which actually killed  

the deceased was the appellant and not his  

father or stepmother.”  

       (emphasis supplied)  

37. In Sukhram case (supra) two accused persons were  

convicted by the trial Court under Section 302 read  

with Section 34 IPC and under Section 436 read with  

Section 34 IPC.  The High Court acquitted one of them  

giving him the benefit of doubt.  It is found that  

though the co-accused and the appellant were  

individually charged under Sections 302 and 436 IPC

47  

and alternatively under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC  

and Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC, the latter  

was found acceptable to the Sessions Judge.  The  

co-accused was acquitted on the ground of benefit of  

doubt.  In such circumstances, since this was a case  

where the co-accused was a named person and was  

acquitted, the appellant could not be said to have  

acted conjointly with anyone in the commission of the  

offence.  The court also noticed infirmities and  

contradictions in the evidence.  

38. It is clear the evidence in this case clearly supports  

the case of throttling.  As far as the motive is concerned,  

there is the evidence of P.W.4 that a few days prior to the  

date of incident appellant had visited her and told her  

about not being given the half tola gold and money.  She  

also deposed about being told by the appellant that result  

of non-compliance with his demands would be that he would  

kill his wife.  P.W.3 has also spoken of the threat as  

conveyed by P.W.4.  This has been believed in by two courts.  

48  

39. Another circumstances which is found by the High Court  

is that, as is natural, the appellant and his wife had a  

separate room, therefore, there was a custodial death in  

which the appellant alone has been implicated.  The death  

is found to have taken place somewhere around 3.30 in the  

morning.  The finding by the High Court is that by that time  

the appellant would be with his wife.  This cannot be  

described as manifestly erroneous.  

40. As far as the contention of the appellant that the date  

of incident is 10.3.2005 but post mortem note shows date  

25.8.2005,  P.W.1 says that it is not true that he issued  

Post-mortem note on 25.8.2005.  He further says that it is  

his say that PM Note was already prepared and one doctor  

was not available to sign it and therefore after signing  

it was issued.  He further says, it is not true to say that  

he has prepared the PM note on 25.8.2005.   

49  

41. The post-mortem note indicates time of receipt of the  

body as 3.15 p.m. on 10.3.2005.  The post mortem is stated  

to have begun at 3.30 p.m. on 10.3.2005 and ended at 4.45  

p.m. on 10.3.2005.  It is stated to be done by P.W.1 medical  

officer and by one another, namely, Dr. A.I. Syed.  The date  

is shown as 25.8.2005 on the post mortem note.  This  

apparently, is in tune with the deposition of P.W.1 that  

other doctor was not available.  At the same time, we notice  

that on said date 10.3.2005, there is a provisional death  

certificate which has been issued, according to P.W.1 him,  

to the police immediately.  It is in the handwriting of   

Dr. syed.  He deposes that he and Dr. Syed have both signed  

on it and the contents are true and correct.  It is marked  

as Exh.23.  In his cross it is deposed by him that according  

to him police machinery immediately demands provisional  

death certificate and when the cause of death is known after  

post-mortem they immediately issued the provisional death  

certificate.  It can be understood as follows:   

50  

Apparently, the post-mortem was conducted.  They came  

to the conclusion that the cause of death was as noted  

in the provisional death certificate and so issued the  

same.  The detailed contents of the post-mortem were  

thereafter entered.  No doubt, there is some gap, that  

is from 10.03.2005 to 25.08.2005 but this is on the  

basis that one doctor was not available to sign it.  

42. It is inter alia certified by the two doctors in the  

provisional death certificate that they have done the post  

mortem on the body of Mrs. Sultana Javed Sheikh, 20 years  

of age on 10.3.2005 and the probable cause of death seems  

to be acute cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to acute  

asphyxia, secondary to throttling.  The said certificate  

is dated 10.03.2005.  There is the date, 25.08.2005 on the  

Post Mortem report.  Also, the date 10.03.2005 is shown  

against the Column-forwarded to the Police Sub Inspector,  

Naldurg.  But the reason appears to be that though Post  

Mortem was conducted on 10.03.2005, it was signed by the  

doctor on 25.08.2005.  Though it could be argued that the

51  

reason for the date 25.08.2005 is that one of the doctors  

was not available but however, on 10.03.2005, in the  

provisional death certificate how could both the doctors  

have signed.  It would appear from the report that Dr. A.I.  

Syed is the Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Jalkot  

and it is his non availability after the content were  

entered in the Post Mortem report that led to report being  

delayed.  Though there is a gap, we find assurance from the  

fact that the provisional death certificate which is marked  

as Exh.E-23 and which is dated 10.03.2005 corroborates E-22  

Post Mortem.   

43. As far as the injuries in the Inquest report not being  

noticed in the post-mortem report is concerned, there can  

no doubt that the medical doctor knows exactly what medical  

injuries are and ordinarily in case of inconsistency, the  

medical report of the doctor should prevail.  Having regard  

to the post mortem and the evidence of P.W.1, the nature  

of injuries noticed as explained by the deposition of P.W.1  

unerringly point to the death being caused by throttling  

as opined by the doctor.  Much may not turn on the injuries

52  

which are alleged to have been noted in the Inquest not being  

noted in the post mortem note.   

44. We see no merit in the appeal.  The appeal is  

dismissed.  As appellant has been released on bail, the  

bail bonds are cancelled and appellant be taken into custody  

to serve out the remaining sentence.  

…………………………………………………J.  

[SNAJAY KISHAN KAUL]  

…………………………………………………J.  

[K.M. JOSEPH]  

NEW DELHI  

NOVEMBER 06, 2019