Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  2475 of 2009   

Munni @ Syed Akbar …. Appellant VERSUS

State of Inspector Of Police,  All Women Police Station, Gobichettipalayam, Erode                   ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. This appeal at the instance of A1, who is the appellant herein, is  

directed against  the judgment of  the Division Bench of  the Madras  

High Court dated 16.08.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No.434 of  

2006.

2. Brief facts which are required to be stated are that the appellant  

is  the  husband  of  the  deceased  Gulsara  Banu.  Along  with  the  

appellant, his parents were also proceeded against, who were arrayed  

as A2 and A3.  All the three accused were charged for offences under  

Sections 498(A), 302 and 201 of I.P.C. The parents of the appellant  

viz., A2 and A3 were found guilty of the offences under Section 498(A)  

of I.P.C. as well as under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.  

Criminal Appeal No.2475 of 2009                                                                              1 of 13

Page 2

A2 who was also charged under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. was  

acquitted of  those charges.  A2 and A3 have already undergone the  

sentence, even while the appellant’s appeal was preferred before the  

High  Court.  The  High  Court  therefore  dealt  with  the  case  of  the  

appellant alone.

3. As far as the occurrence is concerned, the appellant got married  

to the deceased on 27.07.1997.  They were living in a rented premises  

belonging to P.W.3 at Kurumanthur.  It was a portion of the house.  

The occurrence took place in the morning hours of 12.08.2004.  P.W.1  

is the complainant who is the father of the deceased.  According to  

him, he received a phone call from the accused at 3.00 p.m. stating  

that  the deceased complained of  stomach pain and wanted him to  

come over to Kurumanthur immediately.  Such information was also  

passed on to P.W.2, uncle of the deceased, by around 3.30 p.m. and  

he also immediately rushed to Kurumanthur which was just 50 kms  

away from his place.  After P.W.1 reached the place of occurrence at  

around 10.00 p.m., he found strangulation marks on the neck of the  

deceased.  He preferred Ex.P-1-Complaint, before the All Women Police  

Station,  Gobichetipalayam.  The Complaint  was lodged with P.W.13,  

the Inspector of Police of the said police station.   

Criminal Appeal No.2475 of 2009                                                                              2 of 13

Page 3

4. P.W.13 registered the said complaint in Crime No.5 of 2004 for  

the offences under Section 498(A) of I.P.C. and Section 174 of Cr.P.C.  

and  sent  the  Express  Report  to  the  Judicial  Magistrate  No.II,  

Gobichetipalayam.  She  stated  to  have  inspected  the  place  of  

occurrence and conducted the Inquest over the dead body between  

2.30  a.m  and  5.30  a.m.  in  the  presence  of  Panchayatdars  and  

prepared  Ex.P-17-Inquest  report.   She  recorded  the  statements  of  

P.Ws.1  to  4  and  other  witnesses  and  sent  the  dead  body  of  the  

deceased along with Ex-P-4 requisition through P.W.11 woman police  

constable  to  the  Government  Hospital,  Gobichetipalayam  for  

postmortem. She recovered M.Os.1 to 4 and M.O.7 in the presence of  

witness  P.W.7.  She  forwarded  M.Os.9  to  14  along  with  Form-95  

through P.W.11.  After examining P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 on  

15.08.2004 and after recording their statements it came to light that it  

was not a case of suicide and therefore P.W.13 altered the offences  

under Sections 498(A), 302 r/w 201 of I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P.18-

Special  Report  and  forwarded  the  same  to  the  Court  again.  The  

accused were arrested thereafter on 16.08.2004 at 9.45 p.m.  With the  

admissible portion of the confession of the appellant in Ex.P-9, P.W.13  

recovered T.V.S.50 brake cable wire M.O.8 from the workshop of the  

appellant.  She also recovered green colour wire M.O.7 at the instance  

of the appellant in the presence of P.W.10.   

Criminal Appeal No.2475 of 2009                                                                              3 of 13

Page 4

5. P.W.9  who  conducted  the  postmortem,  issued  Ex.P-8-  

Postmortem  Report  on  13.08.2004.  In  Ex.P-8,  P.W.9  reserved  his  

opinion awaiting chemical analysis report.  Chemical analysis report  

Ex.P-6 was issued by the Professor of Forensic Medicine and District  

Police  Surgeon,  Coimbatore  in  which inter  alia  it  was  stated  “HPE  

poison was detected Hyoid Bone intact.  Death may be due to Asphyxia   

due  to  Straglets.”  After  the  receipt  of  the  aforesaid  report,  P.W.9  

expressed his opinion that the death was due to strangulation. The  

appellant  along  with  A2  and  A3  were  charged  for  offences  under  

Sections 498(A), 302 read with 201 as well as Section 4 of the Dowry  

Prohibition Act, 1961.  As stated earlier, we are concerned only with  

the appellant who was the first accused.   

6. The trial Court based on the evidence placed before it, convicted  

the  appellant  for  offences  under  Sections  302,  498(A)  read  with  

Section 201 of I.P.C.  He was sentenced to life imprisonment for an  

offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. apart from fine of Rs.1,000/- and  

in default  to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.  He was  

sentenced  to  undergo  3  years  imprisonment  for  an  offence  under  

Section 201 apart  from fine of  Rs.500/- and in default  to  undergo  

rigorous imprisonment for six months.  He was also sentenced under  

Section 498(A) to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay  

Criminal Appeal No.2475 of 2009                                                                              4 of 13

Page 5

a  fine  of  Rs.500/-  and  in  default  to  undergo  six  months  rigorous  

imprisonment. The sentences were to run concurrently.  

7. On  appeal  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  having  

confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, the  

appellant is before us.

8. We heard Dr.Sushil Balwada, learned counsel for the appellant  

and  Mr.  M.  Yogesh  Kanna,  learned  standing  counsel  for  the  

respondent State.

9. Dr. Balwada, learned counsel in his submissions, after referring  

to the evidence of P.W.13 the investigating officer submitted that there  

was  great  doubt  as  to  whether  the occurrence  had taken place  as  

narrated by the prosecution before the Courts below, in as much as,  

though P.W.1 stated to have lodged the complaint at 11.00 p.m. on  

12.08.2004,  the  case  was  registered  for  offence(s)  under  Section(s)  

498(A) I.P.C. and Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and for no reason, much later  

on 16.08.2004, the case was altered as one under Section(s) 302 r/w  

Section 201 of I.P.C. and Section 498(A) of I.P.C.   

10. According to the learned counsel, there was nothing to show that  

the  Express  Report  was  immediately  forwarded  to  the  Judicial  

Magistrate.  Learned  counsel  further  submitted  that  going  by  the  

evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 since the body of the deceased was found  

Criminal Appeal No.2475 of 2009                                                                              5 of 13

Page 6

hanging with the aid of a saree and there being no eye witness to the  

occurrence,  the case  of  the appellant  that  the  deceased committed  

suicide  by  hanging  herself  should  have  been  accepted  and  the  

appellant should have been acquitted from all the charges.

11. The learned counsel also contended that there were variations in  

the  statement  of  Postmortem  Doctor  P.W.9  and  Forensic  Science  

Laboratory report which also disclose that there was no overt act to be  

attributed to the appellant for the alleged killing of the deceased by  

strangulation with the aid of a cable wire.   

12. As against the above submissions, Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna learned  

standing counsel for the respondent State by drawing our attention to  

the evidence of P.W.9-Postmortem Doctor and Ex.P-6, the report of the  

Forensic Science Laboratory as well as that of P.Ws.1 to 4 contended  

that the offence alleged against the appellant of homicidal death by  

strangulating his wife with the aid of a cable wire was conclusively  

proved and there was no reason to doubt the said conclusion reached  

by the trial Court as well as the High Court.

13. The  learned  counsel  also  drew  our  attention  to  M.O.5-the  

photographs  which  were  marked  through  P.W.8-the  photographer  

which also  disclose  the  case  of  the  prosecution  that  the  appellant  

Criminal Appeal No.2475 of 2009                                                                              6 of 13

Page 7

strangulated his wife with the aid of a cable wire and the cause of her  

death was fully established.

14. The learned counsel submitted that merely because a mark was  

noted on the neck of the deceased, which did not have a full circle on  

the neck, it cannot be concluded that the appellant did not cause her  

death.  The learned counsel was at pains to show that the cable mark  

was visible to the naked eye as noted by the Postmortem Doctor P.W.9  

as  well  as  Ex.P-6-Forensic  Science  Laboratory  report  apart  from  

strangulation mark found on the neck of the deceased which all show  

without any iota of doubt that it was a case of murder and that all the  

other  attendant  circumstances  conclusively  prove  that  it  was  the  

appellant who had caused the death of the deceased.

15. Having heard the learned counsel  appearing for  the appellant  

and the learned standing counsel for the respondent State and having  

perused  the  impugned  judgments  of  the  High  Court  and  the  trial  

Court as well as the material documents marked in the case, at the  

very outset, it will be relevant to note the incriminating circumstances  

which were found established against the appellant.

16. The appellant and the deceased were living together in a portion  

let out by P.W.3.  On the fateful day in the early morning around 3.00  

a.m. according to P.W.3, he heard shrieking noise of the deceased and  

Criminal Appeal No.2475 of 2009                                                                              7 of 13

Page 8

when the  wife  of  P.W.3  went  and  tapped  the  door,  she  heard  the  

appellant  uttering  something  in  Urdu  to  the  deceased  and  the  

deceased herself  informed that she suffered a minor electric shock.  

Thereafter, the deceased was seen by P.W.4 in the godown where he  

was working, to which place, the deceased went and enquired about  

the owner of the godown which is a tobacco godown.  Subsequently,  

P.W.4 along with one of his friends heard the shouts of the appellant  

and rushed to the house of the appellant and the house was locked  

from inside and they saw the appellant crying and also shouting that  

his  wife  hanged  herself  from  the  roof  with  the  aid  of  a  saree.  

According to P.W.4, they saw her hanging from the roof and she was  

in  a  kneeled  down position.  P.W.4  and  his  friend  called  upon the  

appellant to open the door to enable them to get inside in order to  

rescue the deceased.  After they entered, they brought the body of the  

deceased to the floor and found that she was already dead, though the  

appellant claimed that she was alive.  It was also stated by P.W.4 that  

before  entering  the  house,  they  saw the  appellant  on  the  roof  top  

removing some of the tiles.  

17. P.W.2 who is the uncle of the deceased stated that he was living  

50 kms away from the place of appellant and the deceased and that he  

got  information from the appellant  that  the deceased was suffering  

from stomach pain.  On hearing the said information, he along with  

Criminal Appeal No.2475 of 2009                                                                              8 of 13

Page 9

his wife rushed to the place of the appellant where they found the  

deceased lying dead on the floor.  P.W.2 also stated that his wife on  

seeing the body of  the deceased noted strangulation marks on her  

neck, because of which P.W.2 developed some suspicion and upon the  

arrival of P.W.1, the father of the deceased, they decided to lodge a  

complaint  and  that  is  how the  Ex.P-1  came to  be  lodged  through  

P.W.1 at around 10.30 p.m. on 12.08.2004.    

18. The  evidence  of  P.W.9-the  Postmortem  Doctor  who  issued  

Ex.P-8-Postmortem Report deposed that  initially  when he examined  

the body of the deceased, he could not offer any definite opinion as he  

wanted  to  verify  the  Forensic  Science  Laboratory  report.  

Subsequently, after receipt of Ex.P-6, the report from Forensic Science  

Laboratory, P.W.9 gave the opinion that the death of the deceased was  

due to asphyxia. In other words, the theory of hanging by the deceased  

on her own, propounded by the appellant was found to be not true.  

The  report  of  the  Forensic  Science  Laboratory  also  confirmed  that  

there was strangulation marks on the neck of the deceased and that  

substance like cable was used for such strangulation.  Based on the  

appellant’s information, M.Os.7 and 8 cable wires were also recovered.  

When the above circumstances were all put to the appellant, there was  

only a simple denial and nothing more was stated on behalf of the  

appellant.

Criminal Appeal No.2475 of 2009                                                                              9 of 13

Page 10

19. In  the  above  stated  background,  when  we  consider  the  

contention  of  the  appellant,  it  was  mainly  two  fold.  In  the  first  

instance, it was contended that as per the medical evidence what was  

noted on the neck of the deceased was a cable mark from the right  

side to the left side of the neck and not all around the neck of the  

deceased which would not support the theory of strangulation.  It was  

then contended that even as per the version of P.W.4 and his friend  

who helped the appellant to lower down the body, which was hanging  

from the roof top, they found the deceased hanging with the aid of a  

saree  around her  neck.   By  referring  to  the  said  evidence,  it  was  

contended that it was a definite case of suicide and not a homicidal  

death.  Though in the first  blush such a contention appears to be  

appealing, on a deeper scrutiny,  we find that the same was wholly  

unbelievable and does not merit any consideration.   

20. It has come out in scientific evidence and expert opinion without  

any scope of  ambiguity  that  there was strangulation marks on the  

neck of the deceased and that there was also a rope mark which could  

have been caused with the aid of the cable wire viz., M.Os.7 and 8.  

When such scientific evidence was found to be existing the story spun  

by the appellant that his wife was hanging from the roof with the aid  

of a saree has been found to be nothing but a concocted one designed  

to escape from his culpability.  The further fact that the appellant was  

Criminal Appeal No.2475 of 2009                                                                              10 of 13

Page 11

found sitting on the roof top removing certain tiles found to be another  

well thought out drama played by the appellant to make P.W.4 and his  

friend to believe as though he was innocent and he had nothing to do  

with the killing of his deceased wife.  On the whole the episode was  

attempted  by the  appellant  to  show as  though his  wife  committed  

suicide  while  it  has  come out  in  evidence  through P.W.4  that  the  

deceased was found in a kneel down position as there was hardly four  

feet gap in between the top of the cot and the roof.  The appellant  

having successfully  carried out his  evil  design in the killing of  the  

deceased with the use of M.O.8 cable, however, made an unsuccessful  

effort to make it appear as though the deceased was hanging from the  

roof top with the aid of a saree.   

21. If really the deceased had hanged herself with the aid of a saree,  

there was absolutely no scope for a cable mark on her neck.  There  

was also no breaking of the hyoid bone or the trachea.  As far as the  

contention that there was only a strangulation mark from the right  

side of the neck to the left side of the neck on the front side alone and  

therefore there would have been no scope for the appellant to have  

used a rope to  tie  around the neck to strangulate  the deceased is  

concerned, the said contention has to be rejected at the very threshold  

since if the appellant had used the cable from behind the deceased on  

her neck and thereby suffocated the deceased, there would have been  

Criminal Appeal No.2475 of 2009                                                                              11 of 13

Page 12

no scope at all for any cable mark on the backside of the neck.  P.W.9-  

Postmortem Doctor with the aid of Ex.P-6-Forensic Science Laboratory  

report was able to confirm without any scope for contradiction that the  

death  of  the  deceased  was  due  to  asphyxia  by  strangulation  and  

ligature marks were found on the neck of the deceased.  It was the  

appellant who was very much present at the time when the deceased  

breathed her last.  Therefore, the best person who could have come  

forward with appropriate explanation to clear the doubt about those  

factors found established through expert and scientific evidence could  

have been only the appellant and none else.  The appellant having  

failed  to  clear  those  vital  circumstances  found  proved  against  the  

appellant,  the ultimate  conclusion of  the trial  Court  as well  as the  

confirmation by the High Court of  the guilt  of  the appellant in the  

killing of the deceased falling under Section 302 of I.P.C could have  

been the  only  conclusion,  more  so,  when the  appellant  was  found  

guilty of the offence under Sections 498(A) as well as Section 201 of  

I.P.C.

22. We have,  therefore,  no hesitation in confirming the conviction  

and the sentence imposed on the appellant. The appeal fails and the  

same is dismissed.

Criminal Appeal No.2475 of 2009                                                                              12 of 13

Page 13

...……….…….………………………………J.  [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]

...…….……….……………………………J.    [Abhay Manohar Sapre]

New Delhi;  October 29, 2014.

Criminal Appeal No.2475 of 2009                                                                              13 of 13