B A I L S L I P The Appellant/Accused viz., Ramachandan, be and hereby was directed to be released on bail as per the order of this court dated 13.3.2007 and made in MP.No.1 of 2007 in CA.No.180 of 2007. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19-12-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN CRL.A.No.180 of 2007 Ramachandran .. Appellant/Sole accused vs State represented by The Inspector of Police Mettupalayam Police Station Coimbatore District (Crime No.550 of 1991) .. Respondent/Complainant Criminal appeal preferred under Sec.374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore, made in S.C.No.187 of 2006 dated 31.1.2007. For Appellant : Mr.R.Shanmughasundaram Senior Counsel for Mr.L.baskaran For Respondent : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Public Prosecutor JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore, made in S.C.No.187 of 2006 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sec.302 of IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charge and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: (a) The appellant/accused is the husband of the deceased Rajeswari. Their marriage took place on 8.10.1982, and they were living together. P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are their close relatives. They were residents of Kattur Village within the jurisdiction of the respondent police station. On 18.12.1991, at about 21.00 hours, the accused and the deceased quarreled. Next day i.e., 19.12.1991, at about 8.00 A.M., the accused went to the respondent Police Station and gave Ex.P5, the report, to P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police, on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.550 of 1991 under Sec.174 of Cr.P.C. The investigation was taken up by P.W.12. An inspection of the scene of occurrence was made by him in the presence of witnesses, and an observation mahazar, Ex.P7, and a rough sketch, Ex.P8, were prepared. Then, he conducted inquest on the dead body of Rajeswari in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P2. The witnesses were also examined and their statements were recorded. The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital along with a requisition, Ex.P9, for the purpose of autopsy. (b) P.W.10, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Mettupalayam, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Rajeswari and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P2. The hyoid bone was sent to the Forensic Sciences Laboratory for the purpose of analysis. Accordingly, it was done, and Ex.P3, the report, was received. Thereafter, the Doctor, P.W.10, gave her final opinion under Ex.P4 that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia as a result of obstruction to the air-passages due to external compression of the neck. (c) The Investigator was of the view that it was a case of commission of suicide. Hence further action was dropped on 5.10.1993, and a report was sent to the Tahsildar in that regard. A communication was issued by the Superintendent of Police on 27.4.1994 pursuant to which a medical opinion was canvassed from the team of Doctors who gave their opinion on 22.7.1994, that the death was due to asphyxia, and the presence of the above mentioned injuries go against the suicidal hanging. (d) On the strength of the said medical opinion, the case was altered from Sec.174 of Cr.P.C. to Sec.302 of IPC in Crime No.550 of 1991 by the Inspector of Police, P.W.13. Ex.P12 is the express report. P.W.13 took up investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared a rough sketch, Ex.P13. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. One Chandramohan Babu, the Inspector of Police, (since deceased), conducted further investigation and on completion of investigation, filed the final report. 3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charge was framed. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and also relied on 13 exhibits https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and 3 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found the appellant/accused guilty and awarded life imprisonment, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.Shanmughasundaram would submit that the prosecution in order to establish the charge, had no direct evidence to offer; that all the witnesses examined who are P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 the close relatives, have spoken to the fact that the spouses used to have often quarrel, and she was treated cruelly by the appellant husband; but, no one has whispered anything about the occurrence or the nexus of the accused with the crime or they found any fault with each other; that originally, the case was registered under Sec.174 of Cr.P.C., and the case was taken up for investigation; that P.W.11 was the medical person who was attached to a nearby private clinic; that according to him, he immediately went to the spot and found the dead body, and at that time, 10 family persons assembled there who informed him that she committed suicide; that added circumstance was that the accused was actually sitting outside and after half an hour, he just got inside to see that his wife was actually found hanging; that it was he who went to the police station earliest and gave a complaint under Ex.P5, on the strength of which a case came to be registered; that though P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 claimed to be in the place of occurrence, immediately thereafter no one had gone to the police station to give any report since it was a commission of suicide; that these witnesses never whispered anything about the injury or anything connecting the accused till 30.8.1994 when P.W.13 took up the investigation; that after a period of nearly about four years, they came forward to state that the accused was treating her cruelly and also quarrelling with her, and even then, they have not whispered anything about the incident. 5.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that originally action was dropped; but, curious enough, the Superintendent of Police of the District has issued a communication that the matter must be raked up, and medical opinion has got to be canvassed; and that accordingly, medical opinion was canvassed from the team of Doctors as found in Ex.P11, wherein they have categorically stated that the death was due to asphyxia and the presence of the injuries found would go against the suicidal hanging. 6.The learned Senior Counsel relying on Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, would point out that in the instant case, even the opinion canvassed by the team of medical persons would clearly indicate that it was only hanging, and there was no strangulation at all. He relied on the postmortem certificate marked as Ex.P2 and pointed out the external injury No.4 namely https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Incomplete oblique interrupted ligature above the thyroid cartilage mark well defined on the left anterior lateral surface of the neck....." Pointing to this, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that in the case on hand, the ligature mark was incomplete, oblique and also interrupted, and it was also found above the thyroid cartilage mark; that it would be indicative of the fact that it was only a case of hanging and not strangulation; that under the circumstances, the medical opinion canvassed was also not in favour of the prosecution; that in the instant case, there is nothing to connect the appellant/accused at all; that no evidence either direct or circumstantial was available; that in the absence of any direct or indirect evidence to connect the accused and also in view of the fact that the medical opinion canvassed was also against the cause of death as put forth by the prosecution before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge should have acquitted the accused, but on the contrary found him guilty, and hence it is a case where he is entitled for acquittal. 7.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 8.It is not in controversy that the dead body of Rajeswari, the wife of the appellant/accused, was found inside the house. Originally, the case was registered under Sec.174 of Cr.P.C. for suspicious death. Following the inquest made by the Investigator, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.10, the Doctor, who did not give her opinion initially as to the cause of death, but reserved. For the first time, she has given her opinion that there was possibility of hanging, and on that opinion, the Investigator dropped the further action in the matter. While the matter stood thus, a communication was addressed by the Superintendent of Police concerned for getting another opinion as to the cause of death. Accordingly, a team of Doctors consisting of 3 medical persons from CMC Hospital, Coimbatore, was requested to give their final opinion. Accordingly, they gave their final opinion which reads as follows: "The death is due to asphyxia. The presence of above mentioned injuries go against the suicidal hanging." 9.Now, at this juncture, it remains to be stated that what was all available in the hands of the team of Doctors was only the earlier postmortem certificate and nothing more. Now, it is to be pointed out that the external injury No.4 reads as follows: "Incomplete oblique interrupted ligature above the thyroid cartilage mark well defined on the left anterior lateral surface of the neck....." 10.The final opinion given by the Doctors was that the possibility of suicide was ruled out. Now, at this juncture, it becomes necessary to look into whether from the point of the external injury No.4, it could have been a case of hanging or strangulation. In order to find out whether it could be one of hanging or strangulation, the following factors could be taken https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ into consideration according to the Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Modi (23rd Edition). The differences between hanging and strangulation as to the ligature mark, as found in Serial No.7 at page 584 of that Edition read as follows: Hanging Strangulation 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 or transverse continuous, round the neck, low down in the neck below the thyroid, the base of the groove or furrow being soft and reddish. 11.When the above seems to be the distinction, in order to find out whether the case would fall under the category of hanging or strangulation, in the instant case, from the external injury No.4, it would be clear that it would fall under the category of hanging for the following reasons. Firstly, the ligature mark found on the dead body was incomplete, oblique and interrupted. Secondly, it was found above the thyroid cartilage. This would clearly indicate that the case would fall only under the category of hanging and not strangulation. Thus, the medical opinion canvassed in the instant case, cannot be said to be in favour of the prosecution as to the cause of death that it was asphyxia caused by the external pressure by strangulation. In such circumstances, it can be well stated that the prosecution has failed to prove the cause of death. 12.In the considered opinion of the Court, the prosecution has not placed any material connecting the accused with the crime. P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the close relatives who claimed that immediately after the occurrence, they were also in the scene of occurrence. A private Doctor, P.W.11, from the nearby clinic was summoned. He has also found that it was a case of hanging and then sent the dead body to the Government Hospital. At the earliest, there was an opinion received by the Investigator from the medical person who actually conducted the autopsy, to the effect that it was a case of hanging, and then, the action was dropped. Further, all these witnesses P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have not rushed to the police station immediately to give any complaint against the accused, probably they knew that it was a case of hanging. Apart from that, it was the accused who went to the police station and gave the complaint in the next morning and not any one of the relatives namely P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Added circumstance was that all these witnesses P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have not whispered anything all along for a few years. When the case was converted to Sec.302 IPC from Sec.174 of Cr.P.C. and the investigation was taken up by P.W.13, they were all enquired, and their statements were recorded. Even in that statements, they have categorically stated that actually the accused tortured his wife, and nowhere they have stated that he had got any role in her death. If really these witnesses have got any suspicion against the accused, they would have given the complaint or they would have given such a statement earlier, but not done so. All would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ go to show that the prosecution had no either direct or indirect evidence connecting the accused. From the point of the medical opinion as stated above, it cannot be stated that the prosecution has brought home the cause of death. In the absence of the above, it would be highly unsafe to find the appellant/accused guilty. Thus, the lower Court has taken an erroneous view which has got to be set aside by the Court by upsetting the judgment. 13.In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment of the lower Court. The appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The fine amount paid by him will be refunded to him. The bail bond executed by him shall stand terminated. Nsv/ Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To: 1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore 2.Do Through The Prl Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. 3.The Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, 4.Do Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. 5.The Inspector of Police Mettupalayam Police Station Coimbatore District, (Crime No.550 of 1991) 6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 7.The Director General of Police, Chennai. 8.The District Collector, Coimbatore. 9.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore. + 1 cc to Mr. L. Bhaskaran, Advocate SR No. 71751 CRL.A.No.180 of 2007 KLT(CO) SR/30.12.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/