STATE OF RAJASTHANversusRAMESH

                  [2015) 10 S.C.R. 163


                STATE OF RAJASTHAN                        A
                           v.
                       RAMESH
           (Criminal Appeal No.1526 of 2008)
                                                          B
                 NOVEMBER 20, 2015
     [S. A. BOBDE AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ~]
      Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 Part I - Punishment for
culpable homicide not amounting to murder-Allegation that c
respondent-father committed murder of his daughter -
Conviction and sentence u/ss. 302 and 201 - Acquittal by
High Court holding that the chain of circumstances against
the convict was not complete to hold him guilty- On appeal,
held: From the evidence on record, it is proved beyond o
reasonable doubt that when the respondent saw his daughter
talking to PW-9, 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
- Medical reports read with oral testimony of witnesses E
successfully prove the charge of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder punishable u!s. 304 Part I against
respondent - Thus, the High Court erred in holding that the
deceased could have hanged herself and that the chain of
circumstances was not complete against the accused - F
Respondent convicted u/s. 304 Part I and sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
     Allowing the appeal, the Court
     HELD: 1.1 After carefully going through the medico G
legal evidence on record, it is opined 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-doctor that the
deceased had died of asphyxia as a result of pressure H
                          163
164      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A over the neck. Though PW-10-minor daughter of the
  accused 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,
B she was not in a position to lose her father. [Para 19]
  [173-F-H]
        1.2 After carefully scrutinizing the evidence on
  record, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt on the
c record that when accused 'R' saw his daughter talking
  to PW-9, 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
D mortem injuries on the neck region and three around
  mouth of the deceased as mentioned in the autopsy
  report. On going through the reports read with oral
  testimony of witnesses, there is no hesitation in holding
  that prosecution successfully proved the charge of
E culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable
  under Section 304 Part I against the accused/
  respondent. [Para 22] [174-F-H]

         1.3 ExceptiOn 1 to Section 300 IPC provides that a
F 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. The following three conditions,
  as required under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, are
G fulfilled in the instant case that the provocation was not
  sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender; that the
  provocation was not given by anything done in
  obedience of the law; and that the provocation was not
  given by anything done in lawful P.xercise of the right of
H private defence. [Para 23] [175-A-D]
           STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAMESH                            165


      1.4 The High Court erred in law in holding that the A
deceased could have hanged herself, and that the chain
of circumstances was not complete against the accused.
The judgment and order passed by the High Court is set
aside. Accused-respondent 'R' is convicted under
Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to rigorous B
imprisonment for ten years. The period of sentence
already undergone by the accused would be set off.
[Para 24] (175-E-F]

      Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology                  C
      2J'd Edn - referred to.

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 1526 of 2008
                                                                   D
      From the Judgment and Order dated 04.01.2006 of the
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur
in D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 397 of 2000

     Shovan Mishra, Milind KumarfortheAppellant.
                                                                   E
    Nedumaran R., P. R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, (A.C. -
SCLSC) for the Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Cqurt was delivered by
                                                             F
     PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. 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 G
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   H
gave a telephonic information on 28.04.1999 at about 10.55
166          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A      p.m. to PVV-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
B      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
C      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. 7199 prepared under Section 174
0
       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 of29.04.1999. He
       directed PW-11 Assistant Sub Inspector Maliram to make
E      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
       basis of which First Information Report (Ex. P-11) was
       registered as Crime No. 63/99 relating to offences punishable
F      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: -
G
            "External injuries seen at the time of P.M. Examination
            (i)   Abrasion 1.5 cm x % cm on area 2 cm below
                  middle of the right mandibular rim on right side
                  upper neck.
H
        STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAMESH                              167
             [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

(ii)    Abrasion Y:i cm x % cm on right side neck in middle/ A
        3
(iii)   Abrasion 1 cm x % cm on lateral half of right clavicle.
(iv)    Abrasion 1.25 cm_ x % cm on suprasternal notch.
(v)     Abrasion 1/6 cm on area just below right side lower B
        lip.
(vi)    Abrasion Y:i cm x % cm on area just above right
        angel of mouth.
(vii) Three linear abrasions each of size 1 cm x % cm             c
      parallel to each other on area just above right angle
      of mouth on right side face.
(viii) Abrasion 2 cm x % cm just above right elbow on
       right arm dorsally.                               D
(ix) Abrasion 2 cm in length linear x skin deep vertical
       on right palm below bone of right middle finger.
(x)     Abrasion % x 1/6 cm on left medial melleolus.
(xi)    Abrasion% cm x 1/6 cm on area below left medial           E
        melleolus on left foot.
(xii) Abrasion 1 cm x Y:i cm on dorsing right forearm
      upper/3.
Neck dissection - on dissection of neck there is                  F
haematoma 89 (with) tissue staining found at following
Qlaces red in colour antemortem in nature 89 effusions
extravessation of blood
(a)     Left lateral side of trachea upper/3 size% x % cm.
                                                                  G
(b)     Left lateral side of trachea middle/3 size % x % cm.
(c)     Left lateral side of trachea middle/3 on area % cm
        below above injury size% x % cm.
                                                                  H
168         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 10S.C.R.


A          (d)   Right side front of neck underneath ext. injury No. 1
                 on antero lateral of trachea upper 1/3 size 1 cm x
                 % cm above the level of hyridbone.
           Further examination shows (trachea) congested areas

B
                      a
           in trachea 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 % cm on left side neck.
           There was froathy blood which came out through upper
c          respiratory tract ce 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): -

0          "Opinion
           The cause of death is asphyxia as the result of injuries of
           the neck region as mentioned. All are ante mortem
           injuries .......... "

E             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.
F
            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
G     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.

H          5. On this, prosecution got examined PW-1 Prithviraj
      Singh, (informant), PW-2 Om Prakash, PW-3 Ram Singh (both
           STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAMESH                         169
                [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

 witnesses of inquest report), PW-4 Raju (witness of the fact A
 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.L
 Bhagwan Singh (Investigating Officer), PW-8, Dr. Viveka Nand
 (who conducted post mortem examination), PW-9 Bablu (the B
 boy with whom the deceased said to had a friendship), PW-
 10 Mee la (minor daughter of accused/sister of the deceased),
 and PW-11 AS.I. Mali Ram.

        6. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the C
  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 D
· 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 E
  a hook ofwooden 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 F
  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.

      7. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found accused/
 respondent Ramesh guilty of the charge, and convicted and G
 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 ur1cr:n H
 Section 201 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for a period of t1·•0
170         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A     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,
B passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur, in Sessions Ca:;e No.
  76of1999, 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
C 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.

D          9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
      perused 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H injuries recorded in the autopsy report by PW-8 Dr. Viveka
            STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAMESH                           171
                 [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

 Nand. We have also reproduced the opinion given by him at A
 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 not mention as to whether it was asphyxia
 due to strangulation or hanging. But in his oral testimony he B ·
 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:-                                                         C

      "After going through above mentioned post mortem
      report it is clear that there was no ligatare mark around
      the neck.
                                                                   D
      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     E
 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.
                                                                   F
        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.                     G

      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       H
 neck by the weight of one's body due to suspension.
 172        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 10 S.C.R.


  A      14. According to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and
    Toxicology (23'd 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 afterthe death, there may
· B 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
  C 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
  D 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: -
  E         "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
  F         blue. Bloody foam escapes from the mouth and nostrils,
            and sometimes, pure blood issues from the mouth, nose
            a_nd ears, especially if great violence has been used. The
            tongue is often swollen, bruised, protruding and dark in
            colour, showing patches of extravasation and
  G         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."
  H                                                (emphasis supplied)
            STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAMESH                          173
                 [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

       17. In 'asphyxia', according to Modi, "ligature is usually A
 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, ........... "                B

         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 C
  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 made by the Medical Officer
  (PW-8) as to external appearances mentioned in page one of
  the post mortem report, which disclose - ·                        D
       "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 E
       dilated".
                                           (emphasis supplied)
       19. After carefully going through the medico legal
 evidence on record, we are of the opinion that it was not a F
 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 G
 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.                                    H
174       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A       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
B threatened 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.
c
        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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G around mol!th of the deceased as 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
H amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I
  against the accused/respondent Ramesh.
             STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAMESH                             175
                  [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

      23. Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC provides that a              A
culpable homicide is not murder ifthe 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       B
present case: -

       (a) that the provocation was not sought or voluntarily
       provoked by the offender;
                                                                      c
       (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.
                                                                      D
       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,           E
the appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment and order
dated 4.1.2006, passed by the High Court in D.B. Criminal
Jail Appeal No. 397 of2000, is set aside. Accused-respondent
Ramesh is convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC and                  F
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.

The lower court record be sent back to make the respondent G
serve out the remaining part of sentence.

Nidhi Jain                                          Appeal allowed.