Case: Ravirala Laxmaiah Vs. State of A.P

anterior-posterior plane and were more steeply sloping when compared with unfractured hyoids. These data indicate that hyoids of strangulation victims, with and without fracture, are distinguished by various indices of shape and rigidity. On this basis, it may be possible to explain why some victims of strangulation do not have fractured hyoid bones.’23. Mr Rangaramanujam, however, relied upon Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Edn. at p. 584 wherein a difference between hanging and strangulation has been stated. Our attention in this connection has been drawn to Point 12 which reads as under:HangingStrangulationFracture of thelarynx and trachea-Very rare and thattoo in judicialhangingFracture of thelarynx and trachea –Often found alsohyoidbone.24. A bare perusal of the opinion of the learned author by itself does not lead to the conclusion that fracture of hyoid bone, is a must in all the cases.” 13. Dr. Aman Hingorani has submitted that in the present case, the post mortem report is completely silent about the ligature mark and its characteristics, as a result of which it cannot be said that the present case was one of homicidal strangulation/throttling as alleged by the prosecution. Dr. Hingorani has placed a very heavy reliance on Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology wherein after emphasizing that “hyoid bone and superior cornuae of the thyroid cartilage are not, as a rule, fractured by any other means other than by strangulation”, has given the differences between hanging and strangulation in tabulated form, two of them being as follows: HangingStrangulation Ligature Mark –Oblique, non-continuous placed high up in the neck between the chin and the larynx, the base of the groove of furrow being hard, yellow and parchment like Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body – Usually not presentLigature 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 Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body – Usually not present 14. However, in view of the binding decision referred to hereinabove, we concur with the reasoning that has been given by the Trial Court, as well as by the High Court and are not in a position to accept the submissions made by Dr. Aman Hingorani. 15. It is a settled legal proposition that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, where no eye-witness’s account is available, the principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation for the same, or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. (Vide: State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045 ; Gulab Chand v. State of M.P., AIR 1995 SC 1598 ; State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran, AIR 1999 SC 3535 ; State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471 ; and Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 731 ). 16. In Neel Kumar @ Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 5 SCC 766 , this Court observed : “30. It is the duty of the accused to explain the incriminating circumstance proved against him while making a statement under Section 313 CrPC. Keeping silent and not furnishing any explanation for such circumstance is an additional link in the chain of circumstances to sustain the charges against him. Recovery of incriminating material at his disclosure statement duly proved is a very positive circumstance against him. (See also: Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2010 SC 773 )” 17. In cases where the accused has been seen with the deceased victim (last seen theory), it becomes the duty of the accused to explain the circumstances under which the death of the victim has occurred. (Vide: Nika Ram v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2077 ; Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106 ; and Ponnusamy (supra). 18. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 , this Court held as under: “Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime.” (See also: Prithipal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 10 ) 19. In view of the above discussion, we reach the inescapable conclusion that appellant had been doubting the character of his wife and therefore, had adequate motive to eliminate her. In spite of the fact that he had been in the same room, he failed to furnish any explanation as under what circumstances his wife was found dead. Particularly, in view of the fact that the courts below had excluded the theory of suicide. The same conclusion stands fully fortified by the fact that the saree of deceased was lying in the corner of the room and the version given by the appellant that he had found his wife hanging with a saree around her neck and he cut the same by knife stands fully falsified as in such a fact-situation, part of the saree should have been found hanging with the ceiling of the room. The conduct of the appellant that he had given a false information to his in-laws and while dead body was lying in his house he stayed in a Krishna Guest House; further that he had absconded from the city itself, suggest that he is guilty of the offence.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It is a settled legal proposition that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, where noaccount is available, the principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation for the same, or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete.In view of the above discussion, we reach the inescapable conclusion that appellant had been doubting the character of his wife and therefore, had adequate motive to eliminate her. In spite of the fact that he had been in the same room, he failed to furnish any explanation as under what circumstances his wife was found dead. Particularly, in view of the fact that the courts below had excluded the theory of suicide. The same conclusion stands fully fortified by the fact that the saree of deceased was lying in the corner of the room and the version given by the appellant that he had found his wife hanging with a saree around her neck and he cut the same by knife stands fully falsified as in such a fact-situation, part of the saree should have been found hanging with the ceiling of the room. The conduct of the appellant that he had given a false information to his in-laws and while dead body was lying in his house he stayed in a Krishna Guest House; further that he had absconded from the city itself, suggest that he is guilty of the offence.However, in view of the binding decision referred to hereinabove, we concur with the reasoning that has been given by the Trial Court, as well as by the High Court and are not in a position to accept the submissions made by Dr. Aman Hingorani.