JUDGMENT
A.K. Mathur, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29-2-1984 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh-nagar, whereby the learned Judge convicted the accused appellant Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment. The learned Judge also convicted the accused Under Section 201, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment He has, how ever, acquitted the accused Under Section 120B, I.P.C. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for the convenient disposal of this appeal are that on 21-9-1982 Inder Singh filed a written First Information Report before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, who in turn forwarded the Same for investigation to the Station House Officer. Vijayanagar. It is alleged that his sister Piyaro Devi was married to accused appellant Kashmir Singh about 3 years ago. It is alleged that out of this wed-lock one son was borne to Mst. Piyaro. It is alleged that after the marriage the accused Kashmir Singh and other members of his family used to maltreat Mst. Piyaro as she did not bring sufficient dowry in her marriage. On account of this maltreatment, she came to reside with her parents and remained there for about one year. Thereafter a Panchayat was held and Kashmir Singh took-Piyaro with him again to his house. Inspite of the Panchayat Mst. Piyaro was not being treated properly by her in-laws. On 20-9-1982 at about 11 A.M Gurudayal Singh along with a constable came to him and informed that his sister is hanging from ceiling and she has committed suicide. He immediately rushed to the house of his sister along with other persons and on reaching there he saw the body of his deceased sister hanging from ceiling. He doubted right from the beginning that it is a case of murder and thereafter it has been shown to be a case of suicide by hanging. He farther complained that the Police did not take necessary care and got the body of his sister cremated. He doubted about the fairness of the investigation. On this report the S.H.O., Police Station, Vijayanagar took up the investigation and registered a case against accused persons, namely, Kashmir Singh, Jhandu Singh, Naresh Singh, Laxman Singh and Vidhya Bai and charged them Under Sections 302, 201 and 120B I.P.C. The case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions Which came to be disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar.
3. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses and got exhibited number of documents. The accused examined one D.W. 1 Deep Chand in defence. The learned trial Judge after due trial found that it was not a case of suicide by hanging but it was a case of murder and thereafter the deceased was hanged so as to give colour of suicide by hanging. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, acquitted the other 4 accused persons and found that accused Kashmir Singh has committed the murder of Mst. Piyaro and he convicted the accused appellant as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal.
4. Mr. Garg, learned Counsel for the appellant streneously urged that this was a plain arid simple case of suicide by hanging. Learned Counsel submitted that the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased corresponds with the symptoms of suicide and not of homicide. Learned Counsel further submitted that there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Learned Counsel has taken us to the statements of the witnesses to show that the accused has been wrongly convicted.
5. As against this, learned Public Prosecutor contested the position and submitted that it is a pfn and simple case of homicide and thereafter the deceased was hanged from the ceiling so as to show that it h a case of suicide by hanging. The learned Public Prosecutor has taken us to the statements of witnesses and specially the statement of P.W. 1 Parmanand who is an eve-witness and who named the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that this clearly proves the guilt of the accused.
6. We have gone through the record and heard both the learned Counsel.
7. So far as the first question Whether it is a case of suicide or homicide it concerned, it is necessary to the medical evidence. P.W. 12 Dr. Sahi Ram who has conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, has pointed out that the cause of death was Strangulation, P.W. 12 Dr. Sahi Ram has pointed out that a 1.5″ broad ligature mark was seen transverse and continuously around the neck above the thyroid carriage. No marks of injuries were seen on the neck or around the ligature mark. On dissection of ligature mark, the sub-cutaneous tissue was redish land muscles ate ruptured and blood (clotted) was present in the tissue and the tracheal rings are compressed and the Larynx and trachea are congested. He also deposed that the neck was not elongated. The legature was encircling whole of the neck and there was no incontinuity of the legature mark, the legature marks on dissection found reddish sub-cutaneously where as in hanging it remains whitish. The feet were completely touching the ground. There were plenty of knots on the neck and plenty of knots were also present on ceiling. Head was not inclined left or right. The saliva was not dribbling or oozing from mouth. From the above circumstances the Doctor came to the conclusion that it was a case of strangulation.
8. After giving our best of the consideration to the arguments of Mr. Garg, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and the evidence on the record, it appears that the nature of injuries clearly shows that it was a case of homicide and thereafter the girt was hanged.
9. Modi in his Medical Jurisprudence and Taxicology (Twenty First Edition) has catelogued the differences between hanging and strangulation which reads as under:
Managing Strangulation
1. Mostly suicidal 1. Mostly homicidal
2. Face, usually pale and petechiae 2. Face, congested, livid and
rare marked with petechise
3. Saliva, dribbling out of the 3. Saliva, no such dribbling
mouth down on the chin and
chest
4. Neck, stretched and elongated 4. Neck, not so
in fresh bodies
5. External signs of asphyxia, 5. External signs of asphyxia,
usually not well marked very well marked (minimal if
death due to vasovagal and
carotid sinus effect)
6. Bleeding from the nose, mouth 6. Bleeding from the nose mouth
and ears very rare and ears may be found
7. Ligature mark, oblique, non- 7. Ligature mark horizontal or
continuous placed high up in the transverse continuous, round
the neck between the chin and the the neck, lay down in the
larynx, the base of the groove or the below the thyroid, the
furrow being hard, yellow and neck base of the groove or
parchment like furrow being soft and reddish
8. Abrasions and eccbymoses round 8. Abrasions and echoymosiss
about the edges of the ligature round about the edges of the
mark,rate mark, ecchymosed
9. Subcutaneous tissues under, the 9. Subcutaneous tissues under
mark, white hard and glistening the mark, ecchymosed
10. Injury to the muscles of the 10. Injury to the muscles of the
neck, rate common
11. Carotid arteries, internal coats 11. Carotid arteries, internal
ruptured in violent cases of a coats ordinarily ruptured
long drop
Managing Strangulation
12. Fracture of the larynx and 12. Fracture of the larynx and
trachea, very rare and that too trachea, often found also
in judicial hanging bone hyoid bone
13. Fracture dislocation of the cer- 13. Fracture dislocation of the
vical, vertebreae, common in cervical vertebrae rare
judicial hanging
14. Scratches, abrasions and bruises 14. Scratches, abrasions finger
on the face, neck and other parts nail marks and bruises on
of the body, usually............ the face neck and other
................................ parts of the body usually
present
15. No evidence of sexual assault 15. Sometimes evidence of sexual
assault
16. Emphysemaous bullae on the 16. Emphysematous bullae on the
surface of the lungs not present surface of the lungs, may be
present
10. Modi has pointed out a broad difference between hanging and strangulation that in case of strangulation saliva is not dribbling, and legature mark horizontal or transverse continuous round the neck, low down in the neck blow the thyroid, the base of the groove or furrow being soft and reddish.
11. From the symptoms, which have been pointed out by Modi it is clear that in the present case the symptoms found correspond to the symptoms of strangulation. Looking to the nature specially the ligature mark round the neck and saliva not found dribbling or oozing from the mouth as well as the plenty of knots which were tied round the neck and on the coiling and head was not inclined left or right and fists were completely touching the ground, these special features show that the deceased was first strangulated and thereafter hanged so as to give appearance of suicide. Thus, there is not two opinion in the matter that it was a case of strangulation and thereafter the deceased was hanged.
12. But the question before us guilty of committing the murder of Mst. Piyaro. In the present case, the prosecution, has examined 3 witnesses Parmanand, who is a neighbour of the deceased and two other witnesses, P.W. 3 Hetram and P.W. 4 Dayalsingh as so-called witnesses of the incident. But out of them P.W. 3 Hetram and P.W. 10 Gurudeosingh have turned hostile. Thus, we are only left with the single testimony of P.W. 1 Parmanand, a neighbour. P.W.1 Parmanand had deposed that at the relevent day he saw that Kashmir Singh and Jhandu Singh were beating. Mst. Piyaro. He told them not give such beating. Thereupon they told him that It is their domestic affair, and he should not interfere in it. Thereafter, he withdrew himself from that place. He further deposed that Gurdeo Singh and Hetram also came to the house of Kashmir Singh and they also told them not to fight. At about 2 A.M. he found that there was a commotion. Some people were coming to Kashmir Singh’s house and going to his brother’s house who was living in around that area. In the morning Laxman Singh came to his house and informed him that some tragedy has happened in his house. Therefore, he should also come to his house. He went to the house of the accused Kashmir Singh and there he found that the deceased was hanging by Chunni from the. ceiling. One end was tied at the ceiling in hook and another end was tied in her neck. Her right leg was touching the cot and the left leg was touching the floor. Her tongue was partly coming out. Thereafter some more people came and the Police also came on the scene. He has deposed that be found Laxman Singh and Vidhya Bai mother of the accused out-side the house. He was also cross-examined at length. But he is consistent in his stand that accused Kashmir Singh and Jhandhu Singh were beating the deceased. A suggestion was also made that his relation with his neighbour Kashmir Singh was not cordial as there was a dispute regarding the wall that Kashmir Singh was not permitting him to raise construction of the wall. Therefore, he is inimical toward the accused. P.W. 3 Hetram has also deposed that in between 7-7-30 P.M. he heard some commotion at the house of Kashmir Singh and he went there. Gurdeosingh also came there. The door were closed from inside. He deposed that after opening the door he saw that Kashmir Singh and deceased Piyaro were standing and they were fighting. He also deposed that Jhandu Singh and Laxman Singh came there. He also deposed that Parmanand was in his house. He also deposed that they withdraw from the house and they heard a shriek of Piyaro after some time. In the morning he saw Dayalsingh and Laxamansingh comings and they entered in Kashmir Singh’s house. They followed them and found that Rampyari was hanging with Chunni tied around her neck with the hook of the ceiling. But he disowned his earlier statement recorded by the Police regarding the beating administered to the deceased by Kashmir Singh. Therefore, he was declared hostile. Likewise, P.W. 10 Gurdeosingh was also declared hostile as he also disowned his earlier statement regarding the beating and the part played by the accused. Thus, in total we are left with the single statement of PW 1 Parmanand.
13. Now we have to examine the statement of PW 1 Parmanand vary closely as the whole case hinges on the statement of PW 1 Parmanand. Parmanand in his statement said that accused Kashmir Singh and Jhandu Singh were giving beating to deceased Piyaro. If the statement of PW 1 Parmanand is to be believed then it transpires that before being hanged the beating was administered to Mst. Piyaro in the evening by Kashmir Singh und Jhandusingh and thereafter the deceased was found hanging. Here, we may also refer to the past strained relations of the deceased with inlaws. As per the statement of Inder Singh P.W. 6, brother of the deceased, and P.W. 5 Makhansingh uncle of deceased, deceased was only married about 3 years ago and members of inlaws family were maltreating the deceased Piyaro for dowry, so much so she was thrown out of the house and she has to stay at her father’s house for about one year. After one year the matter was sorted out by calling a Panchayat and the deceased went back to her inlaws’ house. Kashmir Singh was living with her and other family members were residing separately in a nearby house in that area. Therefore, it appears that relations between the husband and wife were not very cordial on account of dowry and likewise the relations with other members of the family as they were expecting more dowry which they could not get. In these circumstances, an active enimosity between the deceased and inlaws was obvious one.
14. Now, in this light, we have to examine the happening of 19th September, 1982. It is a fact which established beyond doubt from the testimony of PW 1 Parmanand as well as front the statements of the hostile witnesses PW 3 Netram and PW 10 Gurdeo Singh that in the evening at about 7-7-30 p.m. on 19-9-1982 there was a big commotion at the house pf Kashmir Singh arid there Kashmir Singh and Jhandu Singh were maltreating Mst. Piyaro and other members of the family namely Mst. Vidhya Bai, Laxman Singh etc. were present. But both of them withdrew in the evening. They did not support the prosecution case regarding beating being administered by others members of the family as such they were declared hostile. But even these witnesses have deposed that at the relevant time they have heard the shriek of Mst. Piyaro. Therefore, it is apparent that beating was administered to the deceased on the fateful day by Kashmir Singh and Jhandu Singh and the same was witnessed by PW 1 Parma Nand and PW 3 Hetram and PW 10 Gurdeo Singh also heard a shriek soon after the beating. Therefore, beating of Mst. Piyaro in the late evening is very well established and hearing of a shriek by PW 3 and PW. 10 is also established. Next morning she was found hanging. According to the statement of Doctor, the death was not on account of hanging but death was on account of strangulation and thereafter she was hanged. In these circumstances, it is established that the deceased died on account of the beating given by the accused Kashmir Singh and Jhandusingh and thereafter she was found hanged.
15. But the question in the present case is that when Jhandusingh and other accused persons were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions and only the accused has been convicted for causing the death of deceased Piyaro, the accused should also have been acquitted. It was argued that when the evidence against the five accused persons were same and out of them four have been acquitted and one is convicted then this kind of inconsistent appreciation of evidence cannot be done. In support of this contention, Mr. Garg, learned Counsel for the appellant, has invited our attention to Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Sawal Das v. State of Bihar (1974 SCC (Cr.) 362).
16. Suffice it to say that in both the cases the charge was Under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. When the accused were acquitted for charge Under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC then obviously there was no choice but to give benefit to all the accused persons. But in the present case the accused was charged Under Section 302 IPC simpliciter and especially when the relations of the deceased with the husband and other family members, were not cordial who could have that enimosity to do away with the deceased except the husband. In the present case, the husband was maltreating the deceased on account of dowry and in the late evening of 19-9-1982 she was given a beating by the husband with one Jhandusingh and thereafter she was found dead in the morning hanging with neck of the ceiling then irresistible conclusion is that it is the husband who alone is responsible and none the else. Therefore, in these circumstances we do not find any merit in this appeal.
17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentenced passed on the accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is affirmed.