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.