Crl.A.No.76 DB of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNAJB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:February 12, 2008 Criminal Appeal No.76 DB of 1999 Suraj Bhan .....Appellant vs. State of Haryana ......Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D.Anand Present: Mr. Rajiv Vij, Advocate as amicus curiae. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl.A.G.Haryana. JUDGMENT: The appellant challenges his conviction under section 302 IPC, for which he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo further RI for six months. PW5 Kailash Chand son of the appellant made statement Ex.PD on 1.4.1997, on which FIR was registered at 1 PM on the same day. His statement was recorded by PW7 Inspector Manbir Singh. The statement is to the effect that marriage of the appellant with the deceased Tara Devi took place 25 years prior to the occurrence. They were living in Village Kanti Crl.A.No.76 DB of 1999 2 but since the appellant was not doing any work and used to beat the deceased, the deceased alongwith his three sons and one daughter shifted to Narnaul in May 1995 to live with her uncle Ramji Lal Saini. She used to earn her livelihood by labour and Kailash Chand used to sell vegetables on a cart. The appellant used to come to meet them once in one or two months. On the date of occurrence i.e. 31.3.1997, marriage of uncle of Kailash Chand's daughter was to be held. The appellant had come there in that connection for the last three days. After the marriage function was over by 2 O'clock in the night, the appellant and the deceased retired in a room, while Kailash Chand went to the house of his other uncle and slept there. At 7.30 AM in the morning, when he reached the house, he found his mother Tara Devi lying dead in the room and the appellant was not available. He reported the matter to his uncle Kishori Lal and after the departure of the marriage party, he was going for reporting the matter to the police, when he met PW7 inspector Manbir Singh on the way, who recorded his statement at 12.40 P.M. PW7 Inspector Manbir Singh went to the spot, prepared inquest report, rough site plan, recorded statements, sent the dead body for post mortem, arrested the accused and after investigation, submitted final report to the court. The post mortem was conducted by Dr. R.D.Wadhawan, PW1, who found the following injuries:- Crl.A.No.76 DB of 1999 3 “1. Linear reddish mark of the size 1.5 x 0.2 cm was present on the upper part of right side of neck. It was just below mandible. 2. Reddish abrasion of the size 0.2 x 0.2 cm was present on the upper part in the middle of neck. It was surrounded by reddish swelling of the size 3 x 2 cm.” He further noticed as under:- “Brain matter was congested. Patechial haemorrhage was present. Scalp and walls ribs and cartiliges were healthy. Pleurae was congested. Extravacations of blood up-to sub cutaneous in muscles was present. Laceration of the sheath of carotid carotid artery was present. The cornea of hyoid was compressed. Superior cornouae of throid cartliage was also compressed. Laryns and treachea with frothy mucous was present. Right lung and left lung were markedly congested and on dissection, dark fluid came out. Right side of hurt was full of dark fluid whereas left side was empty. Abdominal wall and peritoneum were congested. Mouth, Pharynx and oespphagus were congested and reddish frothy fluid was present in the Pharynx and mouth. Stomach was also congested and it contained partly digested food. Small intestine was congested and it also contained gases. Large intestine was congested and faecal matter was present there. Liver, spline and kidneys were congested. Remaining organs were healthy and normal. Crl.A.No.76 DB of 1999 4 Opinion: In my opinion, the cause of death in this case was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation which was ante mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.” In cross-examination, he stated that injury on the neck was due to strangulation. The injury was on the front of the neck. The prosecution also examined PW2 Constable Mahesh Kumar, who prepared site plan, PW3 Sub Inspector Chhaju Ram, who recorded formal FIR, PW4 Constable Abdul Hamid, who tendered his affidavit Ex.PE, PW6 Dinesh Kumar, Photographer, PW7 Inspector Manbir Singh and PW8 Kishori Lal, who was cousin of the deceased and who supported the version given by PW5 Kailash. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that he had no dispute with his wife and had never harassed his children. He was earning his livelihood by selling vegetables in winter and ice in summer. His wife had left the house as a protest against not accepting her advice for participating in the ceremony connected with death of his father, which was arranged by his brother. Ami Lal brother of the deceased and wife of Ami Lal were annoyed with the deceased as she was living in her mother's sister's house instead of staying in her own mother's house. He never Crl.A.No.76 DB of 1999 5 visited Ramjilal's house after 1995. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court accepted the prosecution version on the basis of motive, last seen, recovery of dead body from the room, where the accused had slept with the deceased and absence of the accused from the cremation of the deceased. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that legature mark was missing and there was no sign of strangulation nor bleeding. It was also submitted that injury column was blank in the inquest. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case was of circumstantial evidence and circumstances relied upon could not be held to have been fully proved. He referred to Parikh's 'Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence', Sixth Edition, CBS Publishers and Distributors, Page 3.40. At Page 3.47, discussing distinguishing features between hanging and strangulation, it is noticed that normally, in strangulation, there will be signs of struggle and abrasions and bruises around legature mark and external signs of asphyxia will be well marked because of violence. There will also be bleeding from nose and mouth. We are unable to find any merit in the contention raised. According to the opinion of the doctor, death was due to asphyxia Crl.A.No.76 DB of 1999 6 as a result of strangulation and there was injury on the neck due to strangulation. There were other symptoms of strangulation. In the case of circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, have to be fully established and should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused; chain of evidence should be so complete as not to leave any manner of doubt about the guilt of the accused. In the present case, there is close proximity of place and time between the event of the accused having been last seen with the deceased and the factum of death. Though, the accused has denied his presence, PW5 Kailash, who is son of the accused, has clearly deposed about his presence with the deceased in the room from where the dead body was recovered. PW5 Kailash will be the last person to implicate his own father for the offence of murder of his own mother. Version of PW5 Kailash is also supported by PW8 Kishori Lal. Presence of both the witnesses is natural. Apart from version of last seen, there is evidence that the accused did not attend cremation of his own wife. There is also evidence that prior to the occurrence, there were strained relations between the accused and the deceased, which forced the deceased to live separate from the accused. Even the accused has not denied that his relations with the deceased were strained and she was living separate from him. The accused has not given any valid Crl.A.No.76 DB of 1999 7 explanation and merely denied his presence. In view of clear testimony of PW5 Kailash, son of the appellant, which is fully corroborated by the testimony of PW8 Kishori Lal, uncle of PW5 Kailash and cousin of the deceased, it is established that the accused was present with the deceased at the time when the deceased was strangulated. Only he had the opportunity to cause death of the deceased. According to medical evidence, the death is on account of strangulation and is homicidal. Relations between accused and the deceased were strained. In these circumstances, the chain of circumstances is complete and excludes all possibilities of innocence of the accused. In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Conviction and sentence of the appellant is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge February 12, 2008 (S.D.Anand) gs Judge