Crl. Appeal No. 783-DB of 2007. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 783-DB of 2007. Date of Decision : 27.5.2009. Jyoti wife of Jagdish aged 30 years, resident of New Janta Colony, Saran District Faridabad. ...... Appellant (1) Versus State of Haryana ......Respondent Crl. Appeal No. 940-DB of 2007. Date of Decision : 27.5.2009. Jagdish son of Khan Chand age 35 years resident of New Janta Colony, Saran, District Faridabad. ...... Appellant (2) Versus State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GAREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate, for Jyoti-appellant. Mrs. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate, for Jagdish-appellant. Mr. H.S. Sran, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J. This judgment would dispose of above titled two Crl. Appeal No. 783-DB of 2007. 2 criminal appeals bearing nos. 783-DB of 2007 and 940-DB of 2007 filed by Jyoti and her husband Jagdish respectively as both these appeals have arisen out of a common judgment dated August 24th, 2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. 2. By said judgment of conviction dated August 24th, 2007 and order of sentence dated August 27th, 2007, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad convicted the accused- appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each with default stipulation. 3. Facts. The couple (Jyoti & Jagdish) (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) were tenant of Parkash-complainant (PW-1) father of Parveen (deceased) aged fifteen and a half years in a house situated on a plot no. 1436, Block-B, S.G.M. Nagar, Faridabad. One of the room of the house was on rent with the appellants where they were residing with their children. The remaining portion of the house was under the self-occupation of the complainant. The complainant had another plot near the premises in which he had constructed two rooms. In those rooms his brother-in- law (wife's brother) Nain Singh and Murti Devi mother-in-law (PW-2) were residing. 4. On May 30th, 2006 complainant and his wife had gone to village Silarpur Greater Noida, Utter Pradesh to express condolence on the demise of Parkash's sister's husband. He came back at his house at 5 PM on May 30th, 2006. He noticed many persons had gathered at his house. His mother-in-law informed him that a tiff took place between Parveen Kumar and the appellants over water on the hand-pump. Fisticuffs also took place between the deceased and the appellants. Parkash's mother-in-law pacified them. After some time, Murti Devi asked Parveen (deceased) to bring milk from the room situated in the other plot of Parkash where she was residing. Murti Devi kept on waiting for Parveen but he did not return. She reached there and found Parveen lying dead on the floor in the Crl. Appeal No. 783-DB of 2007. 3 room having 'Chunni' around his neck. Murti Devi also informed the complainant that Bishan (PW-3) and Chand informed her that they had seen the appellants coming out of the room where Parveen was lying dead. 5. Parveen was taken to Escorts Hospital, Faridabad where he was declared brought dead. Medical Officer, Escorts, Hospital sent information to the Police. Om Parkash Assistant Sub- Inspector reached the hospital and recorded the statement (Exhibit PA) of Parkash (PW-3). He appended his endorsement (Exhibit PJ) on the statement (Exhibit PA) and sent the same to Police Station NIT, Faridabad. First Information Report no. 350 dated May 30th, 2006 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was registered against the appellants. 6. Bansi Singh Inspector-Investigator (PW-12) moved application (Exhibit PM) to Medical Officer B.K. Hospital (Government Hospital), Faridabad for conducting post-mortem examination on the dead body of Parveen. Post-mortem examination was conducted by a Board of Doctors consisting of Doctors S.K. Manocha, Ram Bhagat and Narinder Kaur. Post mortem report is (Exhibit PM). 7. Bansi Singh reached the spot. Rough site plan of the spot (Exhibit PL) was drawn. The 'chunni' (Exhibit P1) was taken in possession vide recovery memorandum (Exhibit PB). Scene was also photographed. The photographs are Exhibits Exhibits PK/1 to PK/8. On June 8th, 2006, appellants were arrested. They were interrogated. During interrogation, Jyoti and Jagdish made confessional statements Exhibit PK and PD respectively. Jyoti in her statement (Exhibit PK) confessed that on May 30th, 2006, she along with her husband had gone to the house of her mother-in-law at S.G.M Nagar, Faridabad leaving behind her nine years old daughter Sanno at her rented room. When they came back they noticed that their daughter was lying naked and Parveen (deceased) was putting off his pant. Her husband Jagdish gave him fist blows. Parveen's maternal grand mother Murti Devi reached there and rescued Crl. Appeal No. 783-DB of 2007. 4 Parveen. After some time, Murti Devi sent Parveen to bring milk from her house. Thereafter, she along with her husband reached the said house and strangulated Parveen with a 'Chunni' and left the spot on the motor-cycle. Parveen was killed by them because he was found doing disgraceful act with their daughter Sanno. On the similar lines was the confessional statement (Exhibit PD) of Jagdish-appellant. After completion of the investigation and other formalities, the accused-appellants were arraigned for trial. 8. The accused-appellants were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. Trial ensued. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Parkash (PW-1), Murti Devi (PW-2), Bishan (PW-3), Ved Parkash (PW-4), Surender Singh Head Constable (PW- 5), Sandeep Kumar (PW-6), Manoj Kumar Constable (PW-7), Sukhbir Singh (PW-8), Ram Phal Sub-Inspector (PW-9), Om Parkash Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-10), Raju Bhatia (PW-11), Bani Singh Inspector (PW-12), Dr. Narender Kaur (PW-13). 10. The accused-appellants examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. They denied their complicity and pleaded innocence. 11. Assailing the impugned judgment, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants (i) that the learned trial Judge has misconstrued the evidence on the record in coming to the finding of the homicide of the deceased whereas the evidence on the record unerringly and unmistakably establishes the fact that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. To support the point convassed, reliance has been placed on the record, that is, the information given by Escorts Hospital, Faridabad to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kotwali, Faridabad, wherein, it was mentioned that Parveen was brought dead with alleged history of getting himself hanged at his residence and the statement of Ved Parkash (PW-4) who on the basis of hearsay evidence deposed that Crl. Appeal No. 783-DB of 2007. 5 he was informed by two boys that Parveen had committed suicide; (ii) that Dr. Narender Kaur (PW-13) in her cross-examination has stated that possibility of self strangulation could not be ruled out. 12. The crucial question falling for consideration in this case is whether it was a case of suicide or it was murder by strangulation? 13. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of Parveen was conducted by a Board of Doctors. Post-mortem examination report (Exhibit PM) reads as under:- “There were 3 contusion marks (parallel to each other) over the left side of neck starting from the mid line anteriorly extending upto the back of the neck. The intervening skin between the contusions is 1.5 (upper and middle) and 1 cm (middle and lower). Face congested. Lips cyanosed. Marks are fading posteriorly. There are multiple contusions on the right side of neck in the middle portion of the neck of size 0.5 to 1 cm. On further dissection the glistening of the tissue seen. 0.5 cm abrasions marks over the both elbows, posteriorly. Thorax, Plourse, Larynx and trachese, Right lung, Left Lung: Congested. Thyroid bone fractured. Right side of the heart contains blood and left side empty.” 14. In Medical Jurisprudence & Texicology 22nd Edition of Modi at page 270, the difference between hanging and strangulation is tabulated as under:- Sr. No. Hanging Strangulation 1 Mostly suicidal. Mostly homicidal. 2 Face-Usually pale and petechiae rare. Face-Congested, livid an marked with petechiae. 3 Saliva-Dribbling out of the mouth down on the chin and chest. Saliva-No such dribbling. Crl. Appeal No. 783-DB of 2007. 6 Sr. No. Hanging Strangulation 4 Neck-Stretched and elongated in fresh bodies. Neck-Not so. 5 External signs of asphyxia, usually not well marked. External signs of asphyxia, very well marked (minimal if deat due to vasovagal and caroti sinus effect). 6 Bleeding from the nose, mouth and ears very rate. Bleeding from the nose, mout and ears may be found. 7 Ligature mark-Oblique, non- continuous placed high up in the neck between the chin and the larynx, the base of the groove or furrow being hard, yellow and parchment-like. Ligature mark-Horizontal to transverse continuous, round the neck, low down in the neck below the thyroid, the base of the groove or furrow being soft an reddish. 8 Abrasions and ecchymoses round about the edges of the ligature mark, rare. Abrasions and ecchymoses round about the edges of the ligature mark, common. 9 Subcutaneous tissues under the mark-White, hard and glistening. Subcutaneous tissues under the mark-Ecchymosed. 10 Injury to the muscles of the neck- Rare Injury to the muscles of the neck- Common. 11 Carotid arteries, internal coats ruptured in violent cases of a long drop. Carotid arteries, internal coat ordinarily ruptured. 12 Fracture of the larynx and trachea- Very rare and that too in judicial hanging. Fracture of the larynx an trachea- Often found also hyoid bone. 13 Fracture-dislocation of the cervical vertebrae-Common in judicial hanging. Fracture-dislocation of the cervical vertebrae-Rare. 14 Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body-Usually not present. Scratches, abrasions fingernai marks and bruises on the face neck and other parts of the body- Usually present. 15 No evidence of sexual assault. Sometimes evidence of sexual assault. 16 Emphysematous bullae on the surface of the lungs-Not present. Emphysematous bullae on the surface of the lungs-May be present. Dr. Narender Kaur (PW-13) was one of the member of the Board, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, deposed that there were three contusions over the left side of neck starting from middle anteriorly and extending upto the back of neck. The intervening skin between the contusions was 1.5 cm and 1 cm (upper and middle, middle and Crl. Appeal No. 783-DB of 2007. 7 lower respectively) was normal. Marks were fading posteriorly. There were multiple contusions on the right side of the neck in the middle portion size 0.5 to 1 cm. On dissection, the glistening of tissues was seen. 0.5 cm abrasion marks were also found over both elbows posteriorly. She opined that cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 15. From the medical evidence, it is evident that thyroid cartilage of the deceased was fractured. He had three contusions over the left side of the neck and abrasions over both elbows. There was no mark of ligature. None of these signs shows that it was a case of suicide by hanging as pleaded by the defence. In case of hanging, there should be saliva dribbling out of the mouth down on the chin and chest whereas no such saliva can be seen in case of strangulation. The neck should be stretched and elongated in fresh bodies in case of hanging whereas this ingredient cannot be seen in case of strangulation. Fracture of thyroid cartilage is rare in the case of hanging as stated in Medicolegal Investigation of Death, IInd Addition in Chapter XII under the Caption Asphyxia at page 324 that injuries to the neck musculature are rare in hanging, and fracture of the thyroid cartilage or the hyoid bone are the exception rather than the rule. It has been further stated at page 336 that in case of strangulation, mark on the neck is commonly below the thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone and/or thyroid cartilage are sometimes fractured. But in case of hanging, mark on neck is commonly in the level of the thyroid cartilage or above it and hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage are usually intact, except in hanging with a long drop or in elderly individuals. In the aforementioned table also, it has been envisaged that in case of hanging, face is usually pale and petechiae rare whereas in the case of strangulation, face is congested, livid and marked with petechiae. Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body are usually not present but in case of strangulation, scratches, abrasions fingernail marks and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body are usually Crl. Appeal No. 783-DB of 2007. 8 present. When the post-mortem examination report is compared with symptoms of suicide by hanging and strangulation, it comes out to be a clear-cut case of manual strangulation. The face of the deceased was congested, there were three contusion marks on the neck. There were also multiple contusions on the right side of the neck in the middle portion of the neck. No saliva was dribbling out of the mouth down on the chin which is sine qua non ingredient in case suicide is by hanging. There was no sign found on the spot that Parveen committed suicide by hanging rather his dead body was found lying on the floor of the house having chunni around his neck. In Modi's Jurisprudence at page 268, it has been observed that it is not possible for any one to continue a firm grasp of the throat after unconsciousness supervenes, hence throttling by the fingers cannot possibly be suicidal. Apart from this, abrasions over both the elbows of the deceased were found which again suggests that it was not a case of suicide by hanging or otherwise. It strengthens the case of the prosecution that the accused murdered Parveen by manual strangulation and the deceased might have tried to rescue himself from the clutches of the accused which he could not. Otherwise, question of these injuries on the elbows could not have arisen. In view of the description given in the post-mortem examination report (Exhibit PM) and the statement of Dr. Narinder Kaur (PW-13), the Medical Officer did contradict herself when she stated that possibility of self-strangulation could not be ruled out. 16. So far as mentioning of fact of alleged history of getting himself hanged in the record of Escorts Hospital is concerned, that cannot be taken into consideration because the deceased was brought in the hospital by his brother. It is not a case of eye witness account. By the time, the deceased was brought in the hospital, there was no evidence with the brother or any one else that the accused committed the murder by strangulation rather the maternal grand mother of the deceased noticed the deceased lying on the floor in the room having chunni around his neck by which first impression would naturally be that Parveen had committed suicide. Crl. Appeal No. 783-DB of 2007. 9 On the same analogy, the evidence of Ved Parkash (PW-4) when he stated that two boys informed him that Parveen committed suicide does not help the appellants to conclude that the deceased committed suicide by hanging and they had not murdered him by strangulation as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants. 17. It is the case of the appellants as put up to the prosecution witnesses that the appellants had seen their nine years old daughter lying naked on the bed and the deceased was putting off his pant and the appellants called the maternal grand mother of the deceased who pacified and asked them to wait till the arrival of the parents of the deceased and on account of that, the deceased felt ashamed and committed suicide. The suggestion coupled with the confessional statements of the accused (Exhibit PK and PD) suggests that they had a strong motive to murder fifteen and a half years old Parveen. The accused-appellants were seen by Bishan (PW-3) and Chand going towards the room where the occurrence took place which further proves the case of the prosecution that the accused murdered the deceased. 18. For the reasons aforesaid, it has been clearly established that the death of Parveen occurred on account of manual strangulation and not on account of suicide by hanging or any other mode in view of the description of the dead body given in the post- mortem examination report (Exhibit PM). The signs, that is, face congested, no saliva dribbling out of the mouth, multiple contusions on the neck, no ligature mark, fracture of the thyroid cartilage, abrasions on the elbows clearly rules out any possibility of suicide by self-strangulation. In the aforesaid facts, excepting the accused, no other person had any opportunity whatsoever, to cause the murder of the deceased. The circumstantial evidence supported by medical evidence in this case is absolutely clinching in establishing the complicity of the accused in committing the murder of the deceased. 19. The evidence and circumstances were correctly marshaled by learned trial Judge in arriving at the finding of guilt against the accused-appellants. Crl. Appeal No. 783-DB of 2007. 10 20. For the reasons recorded supra, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Thus, the appeal is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) (K.S. GAREWAL) JUDGE JUDGE 27.5.2009. SN Whether to be referred to reporter : Yes/No Crl. Appeal No. 783-DB of 2007. 11