Case: Eshwarappa Vs. State Of Karnataka

and Sarpina (A-2) since 2-3 years. He also stated that because of the illicit relationship, the appellant was always living in the house of Sarpina (A-2). A panchayat had even taken place, according to this witness, in which the appellant had given an assurance that he would end his illicit relationship. On the date of the incident, the witness claims to have seen the deceased and her parents near the shop of one master at about 10.30 a.m. 12. Rangaswamy (PW-11) is the real brother of (PW-1) and brother-in-law of (PW-5). He too has supported the prosecution case in regard to the illicit intimacy between the appellant and Sarpina (A-2). He has also supported the prosecution version for demand for dowry. Chandrashekhar (PW-12) is also the maternal uncle of the deceased has supported the prosecution case and had visited the matrimonial house of the deceased to resolve the dispute between the couple. K.B. Shekharappa (PW-14) is one of the panchas who too has supported the prosecution case and clearly deposed that he attended the panchayat in which the appellant’s illicit affair with Sarpina (A-2) was discussed. The panchas had advised the appellant to end his illegal relationship. 13. The only other witness whose deposition is relevant is Dr. Nagesh S. Adiga (PW-15) who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased and found ligature marks around her neck. The witness in his deposition has said: “On further examination of the body, I did not notice any external injuries except for the ligature mark around the neck.The ligature mark was oblique and was extending across the front of the neck from the angle of left jaw and measured 1.5 cms in width and 16 cms in length and it was situated just 2.5 cms below the right mastoid with knot mark measuring 2.5 cms over the left mastoid.” 14. The witness has described the cause of death nearly 10 days after the post-mortem examination in reply to a communication received from the Circle Police Inspector in the following words: “(i) The cause of death is due to constriction force obliquely around neck leading to asphyxia and shock is most probably due to hanging.(ii) The cause of death is ante mortem in nature and death has occurred in less than 24 hours.(iii) The ligature mark is ante-mortem in nature.” 15. In the light of the evidence on record, it was argued on behalf of the appellant that there was no eye witness to the occurrence and the entire prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence. It was also submitted that the circumstances sought to be relied upon do not form a complete chain so as to lead the Court to an irresistible conclusion that the death of the deceased was homicidal and the appellant was responsible for the same. In particular, reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellant upon the deposition of the doctor to suggest that the death could have been caused by hanging.16. The Trial Court and so also the High Court has rejected the story of suicide by the deceased and in our opinion rightly so, for reasons more than one. Firstly, because the death in the case at hand occurred because of strangulation/constriction force around the neck leading to asphyxia and shock as observed by the doctor which is possible not necessarily by hanging, although the doctor has opined it could be caused probably by hanging also. Secondly, because if death had occurred because of hanging, she would have been discovered by the witnesses in a hanging position, unless of course somebody had upon seeing her hanging, brought her down and placed the body on the ground or the rope by which she hung herself had itself snapped in which event there would have been a rope partly tied to the branch of the tamarind tree and partly around her neck with a noose which the witnesses say was not there. Thirdly, because it is nobody’s case that she was carrying a rope with herself when she was seen going towards the field. The presence of the rope and the heap of stones before the branch was obviously a make-believe situation created by the appellant, who was seen by the witness, returning from the field. Fourthly, because there was no immediate provocation for the deceased to take the step to commit suicide. All that she wanted was money from her husband to take her child to the hospital for treatment. Besides, the parents of the deceased were also present in the village around the time the deceased went towards the field which only shows that there was no intense or great provocation that could have led her to commit suicide. Fifthly, because the classic signs of death by hanging as reported in Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (23rd Edition) like face being usually pale; saliva dribbling out of the mouth down on the chin and chest; Neck Stretched and elongated in fresh bodies; Ligature mark being oblique, non-continuous and 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; Abrasions and ecchymoses around the edges of the ligature mark, subcutaneous tissues under the mark being white or glistening; carotid arteries, internal coats being ruptured; fracture or dislocation of the cervical vertebrae were all conspicuously absent in the case at hand as is evident from the post-mortem report prepared by the doctor.17. In the totality of the circumstances and having regard to the nature of the evidence which the courts below have found credible on all material aspects of the prosecution case, we do not see any compelling reason to interfere with the view taken by the Trial Court as affirmed by the High Court. The only modification no matter inconsequential in the facts and circumstances of the case that we may make is the setting aside of the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A Indian Penal Code.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]16. The Trial Court and so also the High Court has rejected the story of suicide by the deceased and in our opinion rightly so, for reasons more than one. Firstly, because the death in the case at hand occurred because of strangulation/constriction force around the neck leading to asphyxia and shock as observed by the doctor which is possible not necessarily by hanging, although the doctor has opined it could be caused probably by hanging also. Secondly, because if death had occurred because of hanging, she would have been discovered by the witnesses in a hanging position, unless of course somebody had upon seeing her hanging, brought her down and placed the body on the ground or the rope by which she hung herself had itself snapped in which event there would have been a rope partly tied to the branch of the tamarind tree and partly around her neck with a noose which the witnesses say was not there. Thirdly, because it iscase that she was carrying a rope with herself when she was seen going towards the field. The presence of the rope and the heap of stones before the branch was obviously a make-believe situation created by the appellant, who was seen by the witness, returning from the field. Fourthly, because there was no immediate provocation for the deceased to take the step to commit suicide. All that she wanted was money from her husband to take her child to the hospital for treatment. Besides, the parents of the deceased were also present in the village around the time the deceased went towards the field which only shows that there was no intense or great provocation that could have led her to commit suicide. Fifthly, because the classic signs of death by hanging as reported inMedical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (23rd Edition) like face being usually pale; saliva dribbling out of the mouth down on the chin and chest; Neck Stretched and elongated in fresh bodies; Ligature mark being oblique, non-continuous and 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; Abrasions and ecchymoses around the edges of the ligature mark, subcutaneous tissues under the mark being white or glistening; carotid arteries, internal coats being ruptured; fracture or dislocation of the cervical vertebrae were all conspicuously absent in the case at hand as is evident from the post-mortem report prepared by the doctor.17. In the totality of the circumstances and having regard to the nature of the evidence which the courts below have found credible on all material aspects of the prosecution case, we do not see any compelling reason to interfere with the view taken by the Trial Court as affirmed by the High Court. The only modification no matter inconsequential in the facts and circumstances of the case that we may make is the setting aside of the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A Indian Penal Code.