Karnataka High Court
H Govinda Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 December, 2021
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100316/2018
BETWEEN
H.GOVINDA NAIK,
S/O.H.DENYA NAIK,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOTEL BUSINESS,
R/O: RAYARAL THANDA,
TQ: H.B.HALLI, DIST: BALLARI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANWAR BASHA B, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATKA,
REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT
DHARWAD THROUGH,
CPI, SANDUR POLICE STATION,
BALLARI DISTRICT,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 03.04.2010 AND SENTENCE
DATED 05.04.2010 PASSED IN S.C. NO.37/2009 BY THE FAST
TRACK COURT, BALLARI AND TO ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 498-A
OF IPC
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.12.2021, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, J.M.KHAZI J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging his conviction dated 03.04.2010 and sentence dated 05.04.2010 in S.C. No.37/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC.
2. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years and pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. He is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Default sentences are also imposed in the event of not paying the fine.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank before the Trial Court.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of accused and deceased took place about 4 3 years prior to the date of incident and they were having a son aged 15 months. Accused was running a Tea hotel on the cross road of H.R.G. Mines and living with his wife i.e., deceased and son. It is alleged that accused was addicted to drinking and frequently used to quarrel with the deceased as she was not paying him money for his addiction. Even though a number of panchayats were held and accused was advised not to do so, he continued harassing and ill-treating the deceased. Ultimately, on 05.08.2008 accused committed the murder of the deceased by strangulating her with the help of a plastic rope (nylon rope) and left the house taking his son and thereby he committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC.
5. Accused has pleaded not guilty. In support of the prosecution case in all 26 witnesses are examined as PWs.1 to 26 and Exs.P1 to 9 and MOs.1 to 4 are marked.
6. During the course of his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., accused has in-general denied the incriminating material in the evidence led on the 4 prosecution side. In response to question No.6, he has stated that "on the date of incident his sister-in-law Nagibai was present in the house and a quarrel took place between her and the deceased; he took his son to the hospital and by the time he returned, he found his wife having committed suicide by hanging and Nagibai was not present in the house".
7. In support of his case, accused has examined one witness as DW.1 and he has got marked a photograph as Ex.D1.
8. By considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the accused are proved beyond reasonable doubt and imposed the punishment as detailed in the impugned judgment and order.
9. During the course of his arguments, the learned counsel representing accused argued that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence are contrary to the principles of law, facts and material 5 evidences and as such, it is liable to be set aside. He would further submit that the Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that complainant being the father of the deceased has given a false statement. He is not an eye witness and his evidence is hear say. The allegations and circumstances made out against the appellant suffer from serious suspicion and doubt.
10. The learned counsel would further submit that the accused is implicated only on the basis of suspicion. There are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The appellant and deceased were living happily. Though sometimes they used to quarrel, however, accused would not go to the extent of committing the murder of his wife. So far as the allegations of harassment and ill-treatment of the deceased, there was never any complainant against the accused. The evidence of the witnesses does not corroborate with each other and the conviction is based on hear say evidence and prays to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order.
6
11. On the other hand, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that prior to the homicidal death of the deceased, she was harassed and ill- treated by the accused for not giving him money for his drinking habit. On the date of incident, the accused and deceased were the only inmates of the house. The evidence placed on record establishes the fact that the death of the deceased was homicidal by strangulation. He would further submit that being the inmate of the house, it was in the exclusive knowledge of the accused as to what exactly transpired and he has not come up with any plausible explanation. After the incident, he has absconded taking the child aged 15 months with him. The evidence placed on record establish the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has rightly accepted the said evidence and convicted the accused and sentenced him appropriately and prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. We have heard elaborate arguments of both sides and perused the records.
7
13. It is not in dispute that as on the date of the incident, the accused and deceased were married since 4 years and they were having a son aged 15 months. It is also not in dispute that near Dharmapur on H.R.G. Cross, accused was running a hotel in a Thatched hut and living along with his wife i.e., deceased and their son.
14. PW.1 Rama Naik, PW.2 Shantamma are the parents of the deceased. PW.3 Devibai, PW.4 Durgibai and PW.5 Nimbavva are the maternal aunts of the deceased i.e., sisters of PW.2 Shantamma.
15. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 establish the fact that after the marriage, though the accused and deceased lived happily for a period of 1 year, thereafter accused started harassing and ill-treating her as he was addicted to drinking and he was assaulting the deceased for not allowing him to use the money for consuming the alcohol. Their evidence also prove the fact that after 2 months of their marriage, both accused and deceased went to an estate near Mysore and thereafter they came to Dharmapur and engaged as coolies in the digging work. 8 PWs.1 and 2 have deposed that after some time, accused wanted to start a hotel at the H.R.G. Cross and PW.1 arranged Rs.15,000/- and with the said money, the accused started a hotel in the Thatched roofed hut and in the same place, both accused and deceased were living with their son. Infact a suggestion is made to PW.2 that it was PW.1 who arranged Rs.15,000/- for the accused to start the said hotel.
16. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 further prove the fact that since there used to be frequent quarrel between the accused and deceased, they along with others held panchayats and accused was advised not to do so and accused was not happy with the holding of panchayat, as he thought that the deceased insulted him by complaining to her parents and holding panchayats.
17. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 regarding the ill- treating and harassing the deceased under the influence of alcohol is supported and corroborated by the testimony of PWs.7, 8 and 14. PW.7 Dasa Naik is an acquaintance of the complainant and his family members as well as CW.10 9 and 12. PW.8 Takara Naik is also an acquaintance of the complainant and his family members. PW.14 Lakshman Naik is a friend of the accused and he is also an acquaintance of complainant and his family members. The evidence of these witnesses proves that accused was frequently quarreling with the deceased and in this regard panchayats were held and accused was advised. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5, 7 and 8 prove the fact that even during the fair (eÁvÉæ) when deceased along with accused visited the house of complainant, he quarreled with her and snatched her Mangal Sutra (ªÀÄAUÀ¼À¸ÀÆvÀæ) and at that time also a panchayat was held and he was advised not to do so.
18. PW.6 Thotyanaik is the neighbour of the deceased as well as the accused. He has deposed that he is also running a hotel at the H.R.G. cross and in between his hut and that of accused there were four other huts. He has also deposed that every day accused used to come drunk and under the influence of alcohol, he used to quarrel with his wife and many a times he advised accused 10 not to do so. PW.14 Lakshman Naik, who is a friend of the accused has deposed that both of them studied at Hampa town. He has also spoken to about the frequent quarrel by accused with his wife. Even though PWs.1 to 5 and 14 are cross-examined at length, nothing worthy is elicited to disbelieve their testimony. Admittedly all the material witnesses belong to the same community and absolutely there is no ill-will between the accused and any of the witnesses and all of them are common acquaintance with the deceased as well as the accused. Such being the case, they have no ill-will or grudge against the accused to speak against him. Through the testimony of these witnesses, the prosecution has proved that on account of his drinking habit, accused was frequently quarrelling with his wife, as she was not allowing him to squander the money they earned by running the hotel and that was the reason for him to assault her frequently. Their testimony also prove the fact of accused ill-treating and harassing her within the knowledge of her family members as well as his friend circle and in this regard, number of panchayats were held and accused was advised.
11
19. PW.24 Ramanaik is a resident of Vyasapura Tanda where the complainant and his wife were staying. His evidence establishes the fact that on the date of incident, he received a phone call from Raral Tanda which is a place near H.R.G. Cross where the accused was running the Hotel, regarding the death of deceased. He conveyed the said information to the complainant. On this aspect, PW.24 has deposed that his mother's parental house was Raral Tanda and one of his sisters is also given in marriage to a person in Raral Tanda and a message was conveyed to him about the unnatural death of the deceased. He has deposed that at that time, the parents of the deceased had gone to the lands and as soon as they returned from the lands, he conveyed the message to them.
20. During his cross-examination, he has stated that he could not know who called and conveyed the said message as before he could enquire, the person disconnected the phone. In this regard, PW.1 has deposed that when he received the information of death of his daughter, he called PW.6 Thotyanaik of H.R.G. Cross and 12 enquired him about the said information and when he confirmed the said information, he along with 10-12 persons went to H.R.G. Cross at around 4.30 pm and saw the dead body of his daughter. Infact this Thotyanaik is examined as PW.6, wherein in addition to deposing that every day accused used to quarrel with the deceased under the influence of alcohol and he had advised him not to do so, he has deposed that on the date of incident, at about 11-00 am, he saw the accused going out of the house along with his son and at that time, he thought that he may be going for making purchase. He has also deposed that he saw some people gathered at the Hotel of the accused and therefore he also went and saw the dead body of the deceased with ligature mark on her neck and he also saw a plastic rope fallen near her. He has identified the MO.1 as the said rope. He has also deposed that the parents of deceased called him over telephone and enquired about their daughter and at that time he confirmed the fact of death of the deceased and that the accused had gone out with the child.
13
21. During his cross-examination, he has stated that on the date of incident accused did not open the Hotel. He stated that he came to know about the incident at 11-00 am when the accused left the house and he saw people having gathered near his house. During his cross- examination by the defence, he has clarified that the parents of the deceased had received the information of death and therefore in order to clarify the same, they called him and enquired. Even though a suggestion is made to this witness that he was having grudge against the accused as he was a competitor, the evidence of this witness makes it clear that in the said place 5-6 hotels are being run. Such being the case, accused was not the only one who was running the hotel and was a competitor to this witness. Being a neighbour, PW.6 Thotyanaik is a natural witness and his testimony is convincing and reliable. We find no reason to doubt the evidence of this witness merely for the reason that he is also running a hotel similar to the accused and as such, he had any ill-will or grudge against the accused to falsely implicate him. The evidence of PW.14 Lakshman Naik corroborates with the 14 evidence of PW.6 which is to the effect that after receiving the information of death of the deceased, they cross verified it with PW.6 through PW.14.
22. At this stage, it is necessary to examine the evidence of PW.18 Shivanaik. He is running a hotel at Bannihatti cross. His evidence is to the effect that on the date of incident at 1-00 pm accused along with his son came to him and requested to pay Rs.5,000/-. As he was not having that much of money, he paid Rs.3,500/- to the accused. He has also deposed that accused requested him to give his cell phone as he had forgotten to take his cell phone and therefore, he also allowed him to take his cell phone and accused went away. He further deposed that at around 5-00 pm, he came to know about the death of the deceased and immediately he went to the Police Station. PW.18 has further stated that at the Police Station Lakshman Naik was present. Accused called the said Lakshman Naik and he i.e., PW.18 took the phone from Lakshman Naik and spoke to the accused, wherein accused enquired whether he has come to know about murder of Sakubai and whether any complaint has been lodged. PW 15 18 has also stated that when he enquired accused as to how he committed the murder, the accused snapped him saying that it is none of his business and therefore he did not probe further. This important piece of evidence brought on record through the evidence of PW.18 is not disputed by the accused.
23. During the course of cross-examination of the material witnesses namely the acquaintance of the complainant, the accused has put forth a defence that the he was having an illicit relationship with the sister of deceased by name Nagibai and the said Nagibai is also having a child through the accused and therefore deceased and Nagibai used to quarrel on this subject and having become frustrated by the illicit relationship of the accused and Nagibai, deceased has committed suicide by hanging. However, except making suggestions, accused has not placed any material on record to show that he was having illicit relationship with Nagibai and also fathered her child. The defence of the accused that the deceased committed suicide being frustrated of the alleged illicit relationship, is 16 to be examined in the light of medical evidence regarding the cause of death of the deceased.
24. PW.23 Dr.Thippeswamy has conducted the postmortem examination. At the relevant point of time i.e., from 19.05.2007 to 21.11.2009 he was working as Senior Specialist. He has deposed that at the request of the Tahashildar of Sanduru, in between 12-00 noon to 2-00 pm he has conducted the Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and observed the following injuries on the dead body;
i.Female body aged 20 years moderately built and nourished. Body measures 5 feet 3 inches in length. Rigor mortis present, eyes are congested and prominent, pupils are dilated not reacting to light, tongue is prominently seen, scalp hair are black in colour measures 35 c.m., from occipital area. There is no other injuries on the body other than ligature mark.
ii.Ligature mark: Ligature mark measuring about 11 inches in length and 2 c.m., broad encircling the neck. Above the thyroid cartilage, sparing the posterior part of the neck. Above cervical vertebrae.
17
iii.Ligature mark is more prominent in the front and on both sides of the neck equally and gradually tapern on to back. On dissection of the ligature mark small echymosis present on superficial tarcia hyroid cartilage and hyroid bone are not injured.
25. PW.23 has deposed that except the ligature mark, no other injuries were found on the person of the deceased. With regard to the ligature mark he has deposed that it was 11 inches in length and 2 cm in width. The ligature mark was surrounding the entire neck area except 2 inches in the back portion. He has also deposed that the ligature mark was prominent in the front as well as the sides but it was lighter as it proceeded towards the back portion. He has given opinion that the death was due to Asphyxia as a result of strangulation and he has issued the Postmortem Report as per Ex.P 7. He has specifically deposed that the death of the deceased was homicidal. He has also deposed with regard to the examination of the ligature mark and ligature material at MO.1 and deposed that on 17.10.2008 the Police had sent MO.1 to him with a requisition letter to examine the same and to give opinion as to whether the death of the deceased could have been 18 caused by MO.1. In this regard he has specifically deposed that the ligature material MO.1 was in a sealed cover and the seal was in tact and after opening the same he examined and found that the ligature mark could be made with the same and the death of the deceased could be possible if strangulated with MO.1. He has given opinion as per Ex.P-9. After examining the MO.1 he has sealed and sent it back to the Police.
26. PW.23 has been cross examined at length suggesting that the death of the deceased was not homicidal, but it was a suicidal due to hanging. Denying the said suggestion, this witness has given in detail the reasons for his opinion.
27. Giving the reasons for his opinion he has clearly stated that in case of death by strangulation by using a rope, the ligature mark will cover almost majority portion of the neck and it would be horizontal, whereas in case of death by hanging, the ligature mark will be in 'V' shape and it won't cover the majority portion of the neck and there will be a pressing on the portion where the knot 19 is situated. He has further deposed that in case of strangulation using a rope the ligature mark may be over or under the Thyroid Cartilage, whereas in case of hanging it will be always over the Thyroid Cartilage. He has also deposed that in case of strangulation when the portion over the ligature mark is opened we would find echymosis (bleeding in subcutaneous tissues), whereas in case of death by hanging, the ligature mark portion will be hard. He has also deposed that in case of strangulation, usually the Tongue would be protruding, whereas in case of death by hanging it will not be the case. In case of strangulation the contusion of eye and brain portion will be dominant whereas in case of death by hanging it may not be so prominent. He has also deposed that in case of strangulation, there may be fracture of Thyroid Cartilage bone whereas in case of death by hanging this will not be the case. He has also deposed that in case of strangulation if the deceased tried to escape and resist, there may be some other injuries on the person, but it may not be the case in all such strangulation. When questioned that if a person is strangulated with the help of a nylon rope such 20 as MO.1, the ligature mark would surround the entire neck, he has replied that in case of women, except the partition where the Braid (dqÉ) would come in the back side of the neck the remaining area would be covered by the ligature mark. When questioned that in case of death by strangulation, there would be injuries on account of resistance, the witness has deposed that this would depend on the place where the incident has taken place i.e., whether it is a rough surface. When suggested that the injuries sustained by the deceased was on account of hanging, PW.23 has denied the said suggestion. The evidence of PW.23 makes it amply clear that it is not a case of death by hanging, but on the other hand it is a case of death by strangulation by using MO.1 rope. Inspite of this witness being cross examined at length the defence has failed to demonstrate that it is a case of death by hanging.
28. Admittedly the deceased and accused were living in a thatched roofed hut. There is no evidence that the deceased was found hanging and having regard to the 21 fact that deceased was 5.4 inches in height, the possibility of she having committed suicide inside the hut, that too by using MO.1 rope which is measuring around 2 ft., 6 inches cannot be accepted. Admittedly the ligature material is 2 ft., 6 inches. With the said ligature material it is not possible to commit suicide that too inside the hut. Moreover the medical evidence is contrary to the concept of death by hanging.
29. On this aspect the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 10 SCC 778 in the case of Javed Abdul Rajjaq Shaikh V/S. State of Maharashtra, wherein the difference between death by hanging and strangulation is dealt with in detail.
Hanging Strangulation
1. Most suicidal. 1. Mostly homicidal.
2. Face - Usual pale and 2. Face - Congested, livid
petechiae rare. and marked with
petechiae.
3. Saliva - Dribbling out 3. Saliva - No such
of mouth down on the dribbling.
chin and chest.
22
4. Neck - Stretched and 4. Neck - Not so.
elongated in fresh
bodies.
5. External signs of 5. External signs of
asphyxia usually not asphyxia, very well
well marked. marked (minimal if
death due to vasovagal
and carotid sinus
effect).
6. Ligature mark- Oblique, 6. Ligature mark-
non- continuous placed Horizontal or
high up in the neck transverse continuous,
between the chin and round the neck, low
the laryns, the base of down in the neck below
the groove or furrow the thyroid, the base of
being hard, yellow and the groove or furrow
parchment-like. being ofe and reddish.
7. 7Abrasions and 7. Abrasions and
ecchymoses round ecchymoses round
about the edges of the about the edges of the
ligature mark, rare. ligature mark,
common.
8. Subcutaneous tissues 8. Subcutaneous tissues
Under the mark-White, under the mark-
hard and glistening. Ecchymosed.
9. Injury to the muscles of 9. Injury to the muscles
neck-Rare. of the neck - Common.
10. Carolid arleries, internal 10. Carlid arleries, internal coats ruptured in coats ordinarily ruptured.
11. Fracture of the Laynx 11. Fracture of the laryns, and trachea-Very rare trachea and hyoid and may be found that bone.
too in judicial hanging.
23
12. Fracture-dislocation of 12. Fracture-dislocation of the cervical vertebrae- the cervical vertebrae-
Common in judicial Rare.
hanging.
13. Scratches, abrasions 13. Scratches, abrasions
and bruises on the fingernail marks and
face, neck and other bruises on the face,
parts of the body- neck and other pars of
Usually not present. the body-Usually
present.
14. No evidence of sexual 14. No evidence of sexual assault. assault.
15. Emphysematous bullae 15. Emphysematous bullae on surface of the lungs- on the surface of the Not present. lungs-May be present.
30. PW.16 Dr. Satish Kumar was also working as a Medical Officer at the Government Hospital Sandur, where the Postmortem was conducted. He has also deposed that along with PW.23 Dr. Thippeswamy, he has conducted the Postmortem examination. His evidence also corroborate with the testimony of PW.23. Thus through the testimony of PW.23 and 16, the prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased was on account of strangulation using the ligature material MO.1 and it is not a case of death by hanging. Therefore, the defence of the accused 24 that deceased committed suicide by hanging herself falls to the ground.
31. In addition to making suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that deceased committed suicide by hanging, the accused has tried to establish his defence by examining DW.1 Pompa Naik. From the testimony of this witness it appears that he is running a Hotel adjacent to the Hotel of the accused and deceased at H.R.G Cross. He has deposed that the accused is not addicted to drinking and on the other hand, the relationship between accused and deceased was very cordial. He has deposed that Nagibai the younger sister of deceased was in love with the accused and she was insisting him to marry her and there used to be frequent quarrel between Nagibai and deceased and many a times he has interfered and pacified their quarrel. He has also deposed that on the date of incident also both Nagibai and deceased quarreled and he and his wife pacified them and thereafter they went to Sanduru. But by the time they returned they found deceased dead by hanging. He has stated that accused is not responsible for the death of the deceased. On the 25 other hand on account of the humiliation meted out by Nagibai, the deceased has committed suicide.
32. During his cross examination DW.1 has stated that since Nagibai was speaking to the accused smilingly, he says that they were having an affair. When questioned whether he speak to the women relatives of his wife and have food with them, he has answered in the affirmative. He has stated that he never saw the accused and Nagibai in compromising position. He has also stated that since accused was promising to marry Nagibai and taking care of her, it was not agreeable for deceased and that was the reason for the quarrel between them. However no suggestions are made to the prosecution witnesses in the line of the testimony given by DW.1. We find that DW.1 Pompa Naik is not a truthful witness and he has been set up to put forth a false defence which the accused has taken.
33. Having regard to the fact that in the light of testimony of PW.16 and 23, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased 26 was due to strangulation using ligature material MO.1, this falsify the testimony of DW.1 that the deceased committed the suicide. On the other hand through his cross examination, the prosecution has proved that on the date of the incident, accused was very much present in the house. On this aspect, DW 1 has deposed that on the date of incident, while he and his wife were going to Sandur, the accused was present in his house and he was giving bath to his son and deceased was also in the house.
34. In unequivocal terms DW.1 has deposed that when they were leaving for Sandur, they saw both accused and deceased together in the house. By 12-00 noon when he returned, he saw the dead body of the deceased in the kitchen fallen on the ground and it was having ligature mark on the neck and MO.1 plastic rope was available by her side and by that time accused had left along with his son.
35. The evidence of DW.1 instead of helping the accused, is going against him. His cross examination establish the fact that on the date of the incident, this 27 witness has seen the accused and the deceased together and by 12-00 noon, when they returned, they found accused missing with his son and the dead body of the deceased was found in the kitchen fallen on the ground with the ligature material by her side and her neck bore the ligature mark.
36. Thus from the above discussion we hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused and accused alone who has committed the murder of his wife. Being the inmate of the house, he is in the exclusive knowledge of what transpired between him and the deceased. He is not coming up with any plausible explanation. On the other hand he has put forth a false defence which he has failed to prove. As already noted during the course of his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he has stated that on the date of incident he took his son to the Hospital and by the time he returned from the hospital, he found the deceased dead by hanging. However he has failed to prove that on the date of the incident, when actually the death of the deceased occurred, he had been to the Hospital. Admittedly when 28 the neighbors came to the spot, Accused was not found. Similarly when the complainant and all the relatives of the deceased came to the spot and he was not found. He has gone along with the child. His conduct is contrary and inconsistent with the plea of innocence put forth by him. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is reliable consistent and corroborates with each other. We find no reason to disbelieve their testimony. They have no ill will or grudge against the accused to falsely implicate him.
37. The medical evidence is contrary to the defence of the accused that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Taking into consideration all these aspects, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the deceased was harassed and ill-treated by the accused and the deceased met with homicidal death due to Asphyxia, on account of strangulation. Being the inmate of the house, the accused is the only person who is responsible for the same. In absence of any plausible explanation to the contrary, the Trial Court has rightly held him guilty for the death of the deceased.
29
38. Having regard to the nature of the offence committed by the accused, the quantum of punishment imposed is in commensurate with the charges proved against the accused and we find no reasons to interfere with the same and accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal filed by the accused fails and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE PJ