Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Before the trial court, complainant was produced as PW-1 who although supported the prosecution version in his initial statement of examination-in-chief, but later on he resiled from his earlier statement and did not support the prosecution story. This witness has been cross-examined by the appellants side but inspite of not having supported the prosecution case, this witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution side and cross-examination on behalf of prosecution has not been done. This witness did accept the filing of FIR but asserted that FIR was not read-over to him which was written by his brother Kamal Singh. Witnesses of facts were also produced as PW-2 Smt. Rajwati, mother of the deceased- Guddi and PW-3 Monu Kumar, brother of the deceased and they have been declared hostile by the prosecution side upon being cross-examined and having not supported the case of the prosecution. Then there are following formal witnesses. PW-4 Dr. Pradeep Kumar who conducted the autopsy of the deceased- Guddi next day of the death i.e. 8.9.2014 and recorded two ligature marks upon the body of the deceased measuring 9.5cm x 1cm and 4cm below the left ear and left side of neck and second injury was measuring 8 x 1 cm on the right side of neck, 5 cm below right ear. Hyoid bone & its cornu found fractured (broken). On exploration subcutaneous tissue and muscle were echymosed. Underneath larynx & trachea found congested. Bleeding was found from the nostril and in the opinion of the doctor, death was due to strangulation and asphyxia, and death was about one day at the time of postmortem. Postmortem report is being proved by PW-4 as Exhibit Ka-2.

Trial court did not find the story of the defence correct that deceased was under depression and committed suicide. It is also observed by the trial court that from the postmortem report it can be inferred that deceased was strangulated and was murdered and the opinion of the doctor that the injury could have been that of suicide, and suicide might have been committed by the deceased, is not trustworthy. Taking the help of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, trial court reached to an adverse inference against the appellants and also found the deceased, living with all the appellants in the same house and as there was no separate living of the appellants, all the appellants were held to be liable for causing the death of the deceased Guddi.

It was further submitted by the learned AGA that from the inquest report it can be inferred that there was only one injury on the body of the deceased that was round the neck. From the photolash, exhibit Ka-8, it is clear that only one injury is being shown that is around the neck of the deceased and this injury could be caused only by strangulation. It is next contended by the learned AGA that although the doctor has recorded in the postmortem that there are two injuries, but the dimensions of the injuries are such that in case both the injuries are clubbed together, then it can be inferred that the injury is only one covering the full circumference of the neck. Moreover, injuries are below the ears, 4 cm from the left side and 5 cm from the right side and from that also an inference regarding the strangulation can be drawn. Injuries found on exploration, which were found during postmortem are also supportive of strangulation. The trial court has observed it minutely and came to the right conclusion that death was caused by strangulation.

From the medical evidence it can be inferred that two long ligature marks are recorded on either side of the neck and in the postmortem it has been clearly mentioned that death is due to strangulation. If both the ligature marks are reconciled, then the total length comes to around 17 cms and from this fact it can be said that whole neck was covered by the mark. Why the doctor did not mention the gap between two injuries, it is also not made clear. It is also not clear that when he clearly reported that death is due to strangulation, then why he stated before the court that death could also have been caused by hanging by the deceased herself. In this regard the statement of witness PW-6 Megh Singh is relevant. In the inquest report it has been clearly mentioned that only one injury is found upon the body of the deceased, which is around the neck. In the photolash, as already said above, one injury is being shown that it is all around the neck. The injury is also 4cm and 5cm, below the ears, as has been reported in the postmortem. Same also goes to conclude that injury is of strangulation and not of hanging. Observation of the trial court that the skin beneath injury was such, which concludes that injury was of strangulation. From the postmortem, it can be inferred that on exploration, subcutaneous tissue and muscle was echymosed. Hyoid bone & its cornu found fractured (broken). Larynx & trachea found congested. Bleeding was found from the nostrils. Though hyoid bone can be found fractured even in suicidal cases, blood may be found from the nostrils. Echymosed muscle can be only when there is bleeding beneath and in the given circumstances seeing the nature of the injury it cannot be accepted to be the injury of self hanging and is that of strangulation. The observation of the trial court in this regard is apt and the trial court has very carefully perused the postmortem report and has come to a right conclusion that the deceased has been murdered and has not committed suicide.