@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATI‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON. MR. DHIRENDRA MISHRA, & HON. MR. R.N. CHANDRAKAR, J'J' CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1018 OF 2002 APPELLANTS 1. Suresh Kamar, 5/0 Jageshwar' Prasud (In Jail) aged 32 yr-s. 2. Shanfi Bai, W/o Jageshwar‘ Pd. Aged 48 years. 3. Rakesh Kumar‘, S/o Jageshwar Prasad, ageé 30 years. AII R/o village Kui, P.$. Kukdur, Dis‘r’r. ; "& f Kawardha. _ Vs REsPONDENT £ k Present: ‘ Mr. Ufkar‘sh Verma, Iear‘ned counsel for fhe appellams. Mr. Ashish Shukkx, learned Governmen‘r Advoca’re for ’rhe S’ra’re. SfaTe of Chha‘h‘isgar‘h, Through 5H0, P.$. Kukdur', Dis’r’r. Kawar'dha. J U D G M E N T (Delivered onogJ_.10.2009) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J:‘ 1. This criminal appeal is direc’red againsf fhe judgment of convic’rion and order of sentence da‘red 22.7.2002 passed in 5.T. No.480/OO whereby ’rhe learned II Addi’rional Sessions Judge, FTC, Mungeli, Dismc’r Bilaspur has convic’red appellan‘rs No.1 & 2 under Sec‘rions 498A, 302 & 201 of #he I.P.C. and appellanf No.3 has been convic’red under Sec’rion 302/34 & 201 of The I.P.C. and sentenced To undergo RI for 3 years, life imprisonment RI for seven years, respecfively and appellan‘r No.3 has been sen‘ienced wi’rh life imprisonmenf and RI for 7 years, respec’rively. 2. Appellanf Suresh Kumar and deceased Uf’rarabai were married in The year 1998 and SaTyendra Kumar was Their son. AppellanT '\$hanTibai is moTher of appellan’r Suresh and appellanT Rakesh. / \/ 1 / / 2 @ 3. Case of The prosecu’rion, in brief, is ’rhaT ’rhe deceased resided wHh ‘rhe appellan‘rs in her ma’rr‘imonial home a’r Viilage-Kui, whereas her paren‘rs resided af Kawardha. Behaviour of Thea appellanfs Towards deceased U'r’rarabai was no’r proper, she was no’r liked by appellanfi Shan’ribai as she wos no‘r efficient in domesfic work. The appelion’rs also hourished a grudge fhaf They did nof give color T.V af the ’rime of marriage. The deceased used 1T0 norrafe her plighf To her parenTs and elder sisTer Pushpadevi. On The eve of Teeja (SepTember) of The year 2000, she visiTed her parenTaI home and complained abouT The behaviour of The W anpellanTs To her parenTs and sisTer. She reTurned wiTh appellan’r i ‘Suresh l afTer ~ fesTIvol. . On 18.10.2000 around 1:13.30 hours appellanT Suresh gave merg inTimaTion of EXP/9 menTioning Therein ThaT his wife UTTaraboi ‘has died by burning. He also gave merg inTimoTion regarding deaTh of his son SaTyendra Kumar, aged abouT 1—1 % years, who had susTained Serious burn injuries in The same incidenT and died while They were preparing To Take him To hospiTal for TreaTmenT on way. Police proceeded for The scene of occurrence, performed inquesT over The person of deceased in The presence of wiTnesses vide EXP/2 and ThereofTer, senT her dead body To Primary HeolTh CenTer, Pandoriya for posTmorTem vide EXP/7, where a Team of Dr. V.P. Jaiswal (PW-10) and Dr. P.L. Kurre conducTed posTmorTem and gave Their reporT of EXP/8. InvesTigaTing Officer (PW-9) Rajesh Devdas prepared siTe plan of boTh The places where UTTaroboi and SaTyendra died vide EXP/6. Plain soil, kerosene mixed soil/a Tin conTaining kerosene oil and o maTch box placed neor The body of deceased UTTaraboi, were Token inTo possession vide EXP/3. Nazri Naksha of. The place of incidenT was goT prepared by Halka PaTwari vide EXP/16(6). On The basis of reporT lodged on 23.10.2000 by ASI Rajesh Devdas, FIR under Cr.No.53/OO was regisTered vide EXP/11. A SeparaTe Cr.No.56/OO ‘\ \\\w\as regisTered againsT The appellanTs under SecTion 302/34 of ‘\‘ \ @ IPC on The basis of repor’r dafed 5.11.2000 Iodged by Rajesh Devdas for causing homicidal deafh of child Safyendr'a Kumar', and fhe appellanfs were separafely fried for fhe said charge Vin S.T.No.481/OO. The orTicles Seized during invesfiga’rion were sen‘r for chemicol examinafion To Forensic Science'LaboraTory, Roipur vide EXP/15. . AfTer compleTing invesTigaTion, charge sheeT was filed againsT The accused/oppellan‘rs in ’rhe CourT of Judiciol Mogisfra‘re Firsf Class, Mungeli, who in ’rurn committed The case fo ’rhe Cour‘r of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and ’rhe same was received on transfer for frial by 1 u The learned Addi’rional Sessions Judge. 5. Learned Trial CourT framed charges under'SecTion 498A or in The aifernafive ~498A/34, Secfion 302 or in The alfernafive 302/34 and 201 or in ’rhe alternative 201/34 of The IPC againsT all The accused persons, who abjured Their guilT. The prosecuTion in order To esTablish charges againsT The accused/appellanTs examined 11 wiTnesses in all. ThereafTer, sTaTemenTs of accused/appellanTs were recorded, in which They denied The circumsTances appearing againsT Them in The prosecuTion case and pleaded innocence and false implicaTion. AppellanT Suresh a‘lso conTended ThaT aT The Time of incidenT, he was noT presenT aT home, and Rakesh sTaTed ThaT he had gone To PanchayaT Bhavan To aTTend his duTies as daily wager WaTchman, whereas appellanT ShanTibai sTaTed ThaT she had gone To river To Take baTh. The appellanTs also examined Laxmi Thakur and Krishna Kumar in Their defence as DW-l and DW—2 respecTively. Learned Trial CourT afTer hearing counSel for The respecTive parTies, convicTed (Si senTenced The appellanTs as menTioned in para-1 of This judgmenT. The Trial CourT afTer SeTTing issues for consideraTion in para—7 of iTs judgmenT, relying upon The evidence of Dr. VP J'aiswal, who \ \s\ conducTed posTmorTem on The person of deceased UTTarabai and ‘h’J mm \\ i, \.r\ \ ,\\ proved his repom‘ of Ex.P/8,- has held Thm‘ fhe deceased died homicidal deafh. Rejecting The defence of fhe appelhn‘rs fhaf ‘rhey were nof presenf a? 1’he fime of incidenf a‘r home and relying r upon the evidence of PW-1 Pushpadevi-sismr, PW-Z Udanlol Dinkar—fafher, PW-3 Sarswafi Bai—mofher of the deceased, PW—4 Mohunlal and PW-5‘Kaver'ibai, neighbourers of fhe appellam‘s, held ifha’r appellanTs No. 1 & 2 were responsible for physical and menial lcruel‘ly Towards ’rhe deceased. However, appellan’r No.3 has been acquiTTed of The charge under‘SecTion 498A of IPC. IT has been ,furTher held ThaT Though no direcT evidence is available in This ca&, however, 'since in The residenTial house of The accused persons, dec‘eased UTTarabai was murdered by ThroTTling and The appellants haye no‘i‘ offered any explanafion as To under whaT circumsTance5°she was murdered, in such siTuaTion, relying upon icircumsTanTial evidence available on record, a presumpTion has been drawn under SecTion 1146 of The IPC and iT has been held ThaT The appellanTs joinTly in fur‘rherance of Their common inTenTion commi’rTed murder of 'UTTarabai by ThroTTling. Defence of The accused persons Thaf The deceased was suffering from epilepsy, in The pasT also she had suffered aTTack of epilepsy and asphyxia could be caused as a resulT of epilepTic aTTack, has been rejecTed. i. Shri UTkarsh Verma, learned counsel appearing for The appellanTs, argued ThaT domesTic dispuTe in The family is common. AllegaTion againsT appellanT ShanTibai is ThaT she did noT approve The domesTic work performed by UTTarabai and for This reason, she used To geT annoyed and a siTuaTion of quarrel used To crop up. FaTher of The deceased Udanlal Dinkar has also alleged ThaT ShanTibai had asked Them Through UTTarabai To arrange for color T.V. as aT The Time of marriage, Th‘ey had given Black 6i While T.V. However, The above allegaTion is made for The firsT Time before The CourT and SarswaTibai i.e. moTher or 'Pushpa-sisTer of The a ;\\ deceased, has no’r made any such aliega’rion. The appeIIanTs have a dispu’re with ’rheir‘ neighbour Mohunlal and They were not in falking Terms for ”the lasf 5—6 year's and because of fhe above animosity This wiTness has deposed againsT Them, deIiberaTeIy suppressing Their sTrained reIaTionship, which has been admiTTed by his wife Kaver'ibai (PW-5). Version of Mohanlal furTher sTands falsified from The evidence of PW-7 ShanTibai. There is evidence availabie on record ThaT The deceased was suffering from epilepsy, and her i faTher has admiTTed This facT in his deposiTion. There is evidence 1 ThaT UTTarabai had suffered épilepTic aTTack in The pasT also. In These circumsTances, The possibiliTy of deceased undergoing epilepTic fiT-and dying as a resulT of suffocation and in The process caTghing firezcannoT be ouTrighTIy ruled ouT. Referring To Modi's'Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, iT was argued ThaT suffocaTion by obsTrucTion of The air passage from wiThin is also possible during a fiT of epilepsy. The necessary sympToms normally found in The cases of deaThs due To sTrangulaTion or ThroTTIing are noT presenT in This case. The docTor has admiTTed in his cross-examinaTion ThaT The deceased suffered burn injuries To The exTenT of 98% and in These circumsTances, confusions described in The posTmorfem reporT could noT be observed. Finding of The Trial CourT is based on conjecTures and surmises and The same is wiThouT any evidence available on record. . On The oTher hand, learned counsel for The STaTe supporTing The impugned judgmenT of The Trial CourT, argued ThaT The deceaSed died homicidal .deaTh in her maTrimonial house, There is evidence available on record ThaT afTer commiTTing murder, her dead body was seT on fire in order To desTroy The evidence and misleading informaTion was given To The police ThaT The deceased died due To burning, which sTands falsified from The posTmorTem reporT. In ' These circumsTances, in view of SecTion 106 of The Evidence AcT, a \ [us there will be corresponding burden on The inmu’res of The house to give a cogen‘r explonu’rion as To how The crimevwos comr‘niTTed. The inmoTes of The houSe cannoT geT away by simply keeping quieT and offering no expIanaTion on The supposed premise ThaT The burden To esTablish iTs case lies enTireIy upon The prosecuTion. 10Reliance is piaced on The judgmen’rs in The maTTers of Trimukh Marofi Kirkan Vs. sfafe of Maharashfra‘, and Swamy Shraddananda alias Mum/i Manahar Mishra Vs. Sfafe of Karnafakaz. , 11. We have heard learned counSeI for The parTies. .We have also perused The record of The Trial CourT as also The impugned judgment 12 Evidence of‘l?W—1 Pushpadevi-sisTer, PW—Z Udanlal Dinkar—faTher, PW-3 SarswaTi Bai—moTher of The deceased, is To The effecT ThaT UTTarabai was married wiTh appellanT Suresh Kumar on 5*“ May, 1998 and she gave birTh To SaTyendra Kumar Through appellanT Suresh. UTTarabai used To inform Them ThaT appellanT ShanTibai was unsaTisfied wiTh The qualiTy of her domesTic work and Therefore, she used To quarrel wiTh her and in The above quarrels, appellanT Suresh used To supporT his moTher and becauSe of The r ¢ £ ,' above quarrels, aTmosphere of The house was Tense. Udanlal Dinkar has also deposed ThaT ShanTibai uSed To ask Suresh ThaT parenTs of UTTarabai should immediaTely arrange color T.V., however, The above facT is missing in his diary sTaTemenT of EX.D/1. They had broughT UTTarabai To Their home in The lasT Teeja fesTival. AfTer fesTival, Suresh came and Took~ her. ‘AT ThaT Time also, she had narraTed ThaT her difference wiTh moTher-in-law is sTill conTinuing. AfTer receiving Telephone of i STaTion House Officer, Kui, he wenT To Kui wiTh his wife in The i l nighT iTSelf. He was informed by The villagers ThaT SaTyendra was 6 AIR SCW 5300 l ‘ 12007 sc 2531 . l l ' l @ being Taken To hospi'ral in semi-burn? condHion by mo'l‘or‘cycle for Treatment However, he died on way. In 1‘he cross-examina‘rion, he has s’ra’red that his s’ra‘remen’r was recorded on 19*“ and nor sfafemenf was recorded on 12.11.2000. In para-11 of his deposi'rion, he has admiT'red that U’r'rarabai was suffering from disease of becoming unconscious. He had gof her freafed alsa, however, her ailmenf used To recur wifhin 4—0 monfhs. 133.5arswafibai, mother of 'rhe deceased, has alsa sfa‘red Thaf iU‘rfarabai used ’ro inform her Thaf her mofher—in—law Shan‘ribai j complains fha‘r she does nof know cleaning and cooking, her work is ‘ no? liked by ‘Shanfibai. She did nof pay much affenfion To The ‘ above compiainT, as such domesTic quarrel is-common. AT The Time . of ‘Teeja, she had narraTed The above facTs To her. AparT from : The above conlplainT UTTarabai did noT Tell her anyThing. She has specuflcally sTaTed ThaT she does noT know anyThIng abouT ‘ appellanT No 3 broTher m law of UTTarabai She did noT sTaTe anyThing agamsT appellanT No.3. 14.PW-4 Mohanlal resides in a house adjacenT To The hOUSe of The appellanTs. There is a passage of 2-4 feeT beTween Their hoUses. This wiTness has deposed ThaT Suresh and ShanTibai used To beaT UTTarabai. He had heard The shouTs of beaTing from his house. However, he did noT see The acTual marpeef. One ShanTibai BareTin had gone To The house of‘appellanTs a day before The deaTh of UTTarabai, AT ThaT Time Suresh was beaTing UTTarabai, she Tried To mediaTe, he overheard Their shouTs. ShanTibai was saying, “don'T beaT, leave her". However, he never inTervened in Their affairs: On The day of incidenT, he had gone To Pandariya and on reTurn he learnT ThaT UTTarabai has been seT on fire and murdered He has denied The suggesTIon of The defence ThaT There Is any dispuTe beTween Them He has furTher' denied ThaT 7 They are noT in Talking Terms sunce lasT 5-6 years. He has sTaTed \_\‘\\\ThaT They have cordial relaTionship wiTh The accused _ persons. He ~< \ \. l x \x. had s’ra’red before fhe police fha‘r Sham‘ibai wem‘ To The house of appellan‘rs a day before The inciden’r and had s’ropped fhem from beo'l‘ing. He canno‘l‘ soy as To why 1‘his focf is no‘r mem‘ioned in his diary sfafemerrr of Ex.D/2. 15.PW-5 Kaver‘ibai, wife of Mohonlol,rhas also deposed fha'r The accused persons‘used to quarrel wiTh U’rfaraboi, which They ; overheard from Their house. In The cross-examinaTion she has admiTTed ThaT They are noT in Talking Terms wiTh The accused _ persons and They have sTopped going To each oTher's house even i before The deaTh of UTTarabai. There was some dispuTe beTween ‘ "TTfe Two families in connecTion wiTh repairs of roof. 16.PW-6 Narendra Singh is a wiTness of inquesT of EXP/2. He has alsb deposed‘ThaT on The daTe of incidenT, on hearing abouT The incidenT, he wenT To The house of Suresh. He saw ThaT UTTarabai l was lying inside The room in burnT condiTion, her 1-1 % year child was Taken ouT in burnT condiTion, he died on way while being Taken To Pandariya hospiTal and he was broughT back To Suresh's house. The cloThes lying nearby on The floor were also burnT. However, The cloThes which were hanging on rope were noT burnT. InquesT was prepared in Their presence and he has signed The inquesT reporT. In The cross—examinaTion, he has admiTTed ThaT he never heard or saw The appellanTs quarreling or arguing wiTh The deceased. Accused persons and. UTTarabai were residing happily and peacefully. UTTarabai was suffering from epilepsy, as was Told by Suresh Kumar, he had given Ten To TwenTy rupees To Suresh for purchasing medicine for UTTarabai, AT The Time of incidenT, Suresh had gone To his Tea shop in Kui markeT, appellanT Rakesh was discharging his duTies as WaTchman of Gram PanchayaT. Gram PanchayaT is aT a disTance of 2 furlong whereas shop of Suresh is aT a disTance of 100 meTers. When They reached The house of accused persons, ShanTibai Told Them ThaT she has jusT reTurned - N \\\from river afTer Taking her baTh. Rakesh resides in Gram \\ \ 7 @ Panchayaf Bhavan and sleeps There. There is a dispu‘l‘e befween PW—4 Mohanlal and ’rhe accused per-sons since 5-6 years and They are no‘r in Talking ’rerms and fhey did no’r visi‘l' each o’rher's hOUSe. The clofhes on ’rhe rope Were noT burn? as They were aT a disTance. 17.5hanTibai (PW-7) has noT sTaTed anyThing againsT The accused persons and she has been declared hosTile. In The cross— T examinaTion by The prosecuTion also, she has noT deposed anyThing againsT Them. 118.PW—8 Jagmohan GupTa has deposed ThaT he recognizes The accused persons. He had also seen The wife of Suresh, who is dead. He used To keep his goods in The house of accused persons. ijle meT wife of Suresh around 9—9.30, he Told her ThaT he is Taking his goods, aT ThaT Time accused persons were noT presenT. Around 10.30 when he was in his shop, he heard abouT The fire and ThereafTer, heard ThaT wife of Suresh has commiTTed suicide by seTTing herself on fire. He did noT see deceased quarreling wiTh any person on ThaT day. He has been cross-examined by The prosecuTion, however, he has denied having made any sTaTemenT as menTioned in The marked porTion of EXP/5. 19.PW-9 Ramprasad has deposed ThaT he heard ThaT UTTarabai died due To burning. On hearing abouT The incidenT, he wenT To The house of Suresh around 2.30, he saw ThaT son of Suresh had burn injuries and he was alive. The child was Taken To Pandariya on moTorcycle, however, he died on way and broughT back. He had also seen The dead body of UTTarabai lying on The floor. He was presenT aT The Ti'me of inquesT being conducTed by The police. In The Jcross—examinaTion, he has admiTTed ThaT UTTarabai was suffering from'epilepsy. One day he saw ThaT UTTarabai had fallen on The ground, whereupon he rushed Towards her and found ThaT froTh Was coming ouT of her mouTh as a resulT of epilepTic aTTack. \ / , I s 20.PW—1O Dr. VP Jaiswal conducfed pos’rmor‘fem over the dead body of U'r‘rar'abai and proved his report of EXP/8. He has deposed fha’r on bo?h of her legs and hands i-.e. upper and lower limb rigor mor’ris was presen’r, excep’r fhe fron‘r and inner por‘rion of her lef‘r hand, res’r of her body was burn'r andrher skin had biackened due To burn, Smell of kerosene was emana’ring from her body. Her eyes iwere closed, whi‘re porfion of her eyes was reddish, her fongue iwas inside her mou‘l‘h and in ’rhe nosfrils blood was presenf. Upper llef’r inciso feefh and lower central incisar of bofh side feefh are l moving in Their sockef, li’rfle vesicles were presen‘r "on The body, The line of redness befween burnt porfion and unburnf por‘rion of skin was absent. AbSence of line of redness is sugges’rive of poscrmor’rem injuries. Confusion is of size 3 cm x 4 cm on righf axilla, circular“ confusion of 3 cm around exfernal genifal orifice. ; On dis5ecfion of vesica'rion, base was found pale coloured. Affer l cuf’ring of skin over neck, in Thyroid region, an ecchymOSed fissue was found and neck muscles over fhyroid region seen. Confusion of axilla & vaginal region showing ecchymosed blood, affer dissecfion frachea was found highly congested below Thyroid region, righT chamber of The hearT was full of blood, whereas in The lefT chamber, liTTle amounf of blood was preSenT. On diSSecTion of sTernum region, below neck cloTTed blood was found. Confusion found in fhe Thyroid region of neck, and righT axilla and geniTal organs' injuries were anTimorTem. Highly congesTed Trachea and blood in Trachea wifh ecchymosed Tissue was found. AllThese lead To impression ThaT pressure has been applied over neck by hard and blunfobjecf. The injury fo TeeTh and conTusion over righT 3 axillapand vaginal region wound, have been caused by hard and blunT objecT. The burn seen over body is posfmorTem in naTure caused by flame. Time of deafh was 18-24 hours from The Time of posTmorTem. The docTor has furTher opined ThaT mode of deaTh of \ UTTarabai. is due To asphyxia caused by sTrangulaTion, iT is @ homicidal in nature, and burn seen over‘ body is pos’rmor‘rem in nafur'e. In the cross-examinu‘rion, he has admi‘rfed Tho? in ’rhe fi‘r of epilepsy, fro’rh comes out from moufh and nose, froth mayr obstrucT ‘rhe passage of air if a person burns. In ’rhis condifion, i’r is possibie ’rhaf carbon par’ricles rnoy nof be found in ’rhe ’rrachea :as person can s’rop‘his breathing for %—1 minu'res and fhereaffer, he has to breafhe and fhen carbon par’ri‘cles may be found in frachea. If a person dies before furfher breathing, in ’rhaf condi‘l’ion, carbon parficles would no be found. e has aso admi‘h‘ed fhaf at times it is possible that epiptic fits may i le ontinue for 10 minutes. The base of vesication caused ue to ntimortem‘burn wou be reddish. If .a lady ies due to throttling, she ay sustain injuries over elbow, lower part of leg; tongue and eyes may ce out, however, above symptoms are not necessary. Contusion may be caused in lungs due to epilepsy. It is 3 not necessary that there must be bleeding from ear on throttling. He did ot find any fracture of y bone of neck or other parts of the body. The extent of burn injury over the person of Uttarabai was 98%, though the same has not been mentioned in the omortem report. 'He has denied the.suggestion that with this percentage of burn, it was not posble to pinpoint the confusions. This witness has fuher stated that the inner side of trachea was not found congested. He has denied the suggestion that cause of eath of Uttarabai was suicidal. d 1.The trial Court relyin ‘upon the evidence of Dr. Jaiswal has arived at a conclusion that the deceaSed died as a result o asphyxia due to strangulation by pressing of neck. The doctor after postmortem has opined that the neck of the deceased was pressed by hard. and blunt object and cause of death is asphyxia and death was homicidal in nature. 22.In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, 23rd Edition, at page 575 ’~\Ei\s1_mngulation is defined as the compression'of the neck by a force -7 i i ? H l c d a ld d m om ‘ n an pst si rt 2 g r f 12 @ other Than hanging. Types of s’rmngula‘Hon has been given as (i) liga’rur‘e sfrangulafion, (ii) Throttling (manual sir'angula’rion— compressing wifh hand), (iii) mugging (compressing wi’rh forearm or foot or wris’r), (iv) Bansda/a (wooden stick is used to compress the neck), (v) garroting (a rope or a Ioincioth and a wooden stick as a Iever to tightenrthe iigation is used), and (vi) accidentdl ‘ strangulation (can arise in the course of a person's occupation : when a neck tie or Scarf is caught in moving machinery etc.). If the windpipe is not completely closed, the face becomes cyanosed, bleeding occurs from the mouth, nostrils and ears, the ha‘nds are clenched and convulsions precede delayed death. If the fingers are used for strangulation (throttling), marks of ‘pressure by thumb and the fingertips are usually found on either side of the windpipe. The thumb mark is ordinarily higher and wider on the one side of the front of the neck, and the finger marks are situated on its other side obliquely downwards and outwards and one below the other. At times, marks are found clustered together so that they cannot be distinguished separately. If the throat is pressed by both the hands, bruises and abrasions may be found on the front of the neck as well as on its back. Besides these marks, abrasion and bruiSes on the mouth, nose, forehead, cheeks, lower jaw or any other part of the body if there has been a struggle. Fractures of ribs and injuries to thoracic and abdominal organs may be present if the assailant kneels on the chest or abdomen of his victim while pressing his throat- If a stick or a foot is used, there is a bruise in the middle of the front of the neck, generally across the windpipe, corresponding in width to the substance used. There will be a similar mark on the nape of the neck, if two sticks are used. In such a case, several local injury will be evident. / § i 13 @ Describing appearance due ’ro asphyxia caused by s’rrangula’rion, if. has been‘ observed Tha’r face is puffy and cyanosed, and marked wi’rh pe’rechiae. The eyes are prominent and open. In some cases, fhey may be closed. The conjuncfivae ar‘e conges‘red and The pupils are dilated. Pefechiae are seen in The eyelids and fhe conjuncfivae. The lips are blue. Bloody foam escapes from The moufh and nostrils, and some'rimes, pure blood issues from ’rhe