Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w. s.34 and s.498A – Murder – Prosecution case was that the appellant and the other accused committed murder of the wife of the appellant by throttling her – They were charged u/s.302 r/w. s.34 – Besides, they were also charged u/s.498A – Trial court convicted all the accused for offences u/s.302 r/w. s.34 and s.498A – High Court acquitted all the accused of all the offences except the appellant, he was convicted u/s.302 – Father of the victim/deceased alleged that the accused were maltreating victim and were demanding half tola gold, dress and Rs.5000/- for business purposes – Appellant contended that when the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the other accused, in the circumstances, it must be taken that prosecution also failed to establish the case against the appellant u/s.302 simpliciter – It was further contended that victim had committed suicide by hanging – Held: PW-4 deposed that few days before the incident appellant visited her and demanded half tola gold, money and further threatened to kill his wife in case of non-compliance with his demands – PW-3-father of the victim also spoke of the threat as conveyed by PW-4 and the same was believed by the two Courts – Further, High Court rightly concluded that appellant and his wife had a separate room in the house and death had taken place around 3:30 a.m. in the morning, therefore there was a custodial death in which the appellant alone can be implicated – Both the Courts noted from the spot panchnama that the height of the room in which victim had died was just 5ft 10 inches and it was again rightly concluded by them that the theory of hanging was incompatible by a person of normal height or even if the height is 5ft – Further, a provisional death certificate was issued by two doctors stating probable cause of death was acute cardio respiratory arrest secondary to acute asphyxia, secondary to throttling and provisional death certificate corroborated the postmortem report – Therefore, evidence on record clearly supported the case of throttling – No merit in the appeal – Appellant directed to serve the remaining sentence.
Medical Jurisprudence – Hanging, strangulation and throttling – discussed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. 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. [Para 38] [55-D]
2. Another circumstance 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. [Para 39] [55-E-F]
3. 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 the other doctor. 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, this Court 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 the second doctor. He deposes that they 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. [Para 41] [55-H; 56-A-C]
4. It is inter alia certified by the two doctors in the provisional death certificate that they have done the post mortem 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. 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 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 second doctor is the Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, 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, this Court finds assurance from the fact that the provisional death certificate which is marked as Exh.E23 and which is dated 10.03.2005 corroborates E-22 Post Mortem. [Para 42] [56-E-H]
5. 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 which are alleged to have been noted in the Inquest not being noted in the post mortem note. [Para 43] [57-A-B]
Sawal Das v. State of Bihar (1974) 4 SCC 193 : [1974]
3 SCR 74 ; Sukhram s/o Ramratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1989) Suppl. 1 SCC 214 ; Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 1413 : [1964] SCR 678 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.