STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. C PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is one more of the dowry death cases which has come up to this Court, the facts in this case being a little sadder than in some of the other cases. It is alleged that the accused who was a teacher was married to Nagarathnamma on 12-4-1993. Hardly 3 weeks later, i. e. on 7-5-93 Nagarathnamma, hereinafter referred to as the "deceased" died under unnatural circumstances in so far as she met with her end due to strangulation. The prosecution alleged that principally because of the unfulfilled dowry demands, the accused/husband had strangulated the wife by using a nylon rope and that he thereby caused her death. The varsion put forward by the defence was that the wife had secured such a rope, that it was fastened to a rather in the roof of the house and that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself. The accused contended that he had cut the rope and put the body on the floor. The prosecution had alleged that this was an arranged marriage and that in the course of the negotiations, the accused had made several demands for money, that he had also asked for certain items of jewellery and furthermore that he had insisted on the girl's side paying for the expenses involved in bringing the marriage party by bus. Though the majority of these demands had been fulfilled, it was the prosecution case that the accused was unhappy over the quality of the gold jewellery, that he had made an issue of this and that he was assured that some of the items would be replaced. Apart from this, there were some other monetary demands which were outstanding and the prosecution contends that the accused used to systematically subject the deceased wife to various forms of cruelty principally in the form of physical assaults and that this was indulged in only to extort the money. The prosecution has produced a letter written by the deceased wife to her brother which is Ex. P. 14 and this letter states that the accused was mercilessly beating the deceased wife. As indicated earlier, the incident took place at the residence of the couple on 7-5-93 and the wife's people were informed about what had happened. Her two brothers, Manjunath who is PW-9 and Narayan who is PW-12 along with the mother went to the house and saw the condition in which the dead body was. They found the nylon rope tied around the neck of the deceased, the rope had been cut and one piece of it was still around the rafter hanging from the roof. Having regard to the facts of the case, the matter came to be reported to the police, the main contention being that the deceased had been done away with pursuant to the dowry demands from the accused and consequently, the police placed the accused under arrest. It is relevant for us to mention that the accused was faced with three sets of charges. The first of them in relation to the items that were demanded and received by him under the guise of dowry as a result of which, he stood charged with having committed an offence punishable under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The second charge was under S. 498-A I. P. C. and related to the act of cruelty and violent assault which the deceased wife was required to deal with. The last and the most serious of the three charges was under S. 302, I. P. C. for having committed the murder of Nagarathnamma. The only defence pleaded by the accused was one of total denial. He had contended that the relations between himself and his wife during the short period of 3 weeks since the date of their marriage were quite cordial and that if the wife had decided to commit suicide, that he had done nothing to abet or provoke that incident and that consequently, he has wrongly been framed by the relations and family members of the deceased only because of her death. The learned trial Judge accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the accused in respect of the main offence under S. 306, I. P. C. and not under S. 302, I. P. C. because after an elaborate discussion the Court came to the conclusion that this was a case of suicide and not of homicide. The accused was also convicted under the remaining two heads both under the Dowry Prohibition Act as also under S. 498-A, I. P. C. for the high degree of cruelty that he had subjected the wife to. The present appeals, the one filed by the State of Karnataka which assails the fact that the learned trial Judge did not convict the accused under S. 302, I. P. C. and the second one which is preferred by the accused challening the conviction and sentence awarded to him under all the three heads. We have heard the learned S. P. P. on behalf of the State and Sri Deshpande, learned counsel who represents the original accused. The two appeals are disposed of through a common judgment.

(2.) WE need to mention here that there was a considerable debate with regard to the manner in which deceased Negarathnamma met with her end on 7-5-93. The medical evidence in this case is of some consequence. The learned S. P. P. has, with considerable conviction sought to convince the Court that this is a clear cut case of murder. His first submission was that the fact that the nylon rope was found tied to the rafter and that it had been cut, has absolutely nothing to do with the death because there is unmistakable medical evidence to indicate that the deceased had been strangulated by tightening this rope around her neck. The death of Nagarathnamma has been caused due to asphyxia due to strangulation and the doctor in his evidence has propounded the theory that the deceased was manually strangulated. The defence on the other hand in the course of elaborate cross-examination has confronted the doctor with a considerable amount of material gleaned from leading authorities on medical jurisprudence and we may briefly summarise what the heads are. In the first instance, the type of ligature mark that appeared on the neck, the position of the ligature mark and the intensity thereof was referred to by both the learned advocates in support of their different theories, one of homicide and the other suicide. The second head of controversy related to the internal injuries that would be caused such as fractures and other serious damage to the internal bones, cartileges and tissues inside the neck particularly the spine and spinal cord which would be to a considerable extent different in a case of manual strangulation as opposed to what would happen in a case of death by hanging. The third aspect of the matter related to the secondary terms such as the evidence of external injuries on the person of the deceased in the course of violent resistence to the act of forcible strangulation as opposed to the condition in which the body would be found where a suicidal hanging takes place such as the natural repercussion in so far as the bulging of the eyes, protrusion of the tongue and invariable emission of body fluids etc. We are indebted to both the learned advocates who have very competently assisted the Court in relation to this highly specialised field of medical jurisprudence also through a reference to the accepted authorities on the subject. The learned S. P. P. has placed reliance on a very comprehensive summerisation of the entire medical position as obtains in relation to this class of cases and which has been set out at page 283 of Dr. K. S. Narayan Reddy's "the Essentials of Forensic Medicine And Toxicology," Fifteenth Edition a xerox copy of which is reproduced in this judgment"--Table. (37) Difference between hanging and strangulation. Traithangingstrangulation by ligature (1)Ligature mark :it is oblique, does not completely encircle the neck; usually seen high up in the neck between the chin and larynx. The base is pale, hard and parchment-like It is transverse, completely encircling the neck below the thyroid cartilage. The base is soft and reddish. (2)Abrasions and ecchymoses :about the edge of ligature mark not common. About the edges of the ligature mark are common. (3)Bruising :of the neck muscles less common. Of the next muscles more common. (4)Subcutaneous tissues :while, hard and glistening under the markecchymosed under the mark. (5)Neck :stretched and elongated. Not stretched or elongated. (6)Hyoid bone :fracture may occur. Fracture is uncommon. (7)Thyroid cartilage : Fracture is less common. Fracture is more common. (8)Carotid arteries : Damage may be seen. Damage is rare. (9)Larynx and trachea :fracture rare. Fracture may be found. (10)Face :usually pale and petechiae are not common. Congested, livid and marked with petechiae. (11)Signs of asphyxia :external signs less markedexternal signs well-marked. (12)Tongue :swelling and protrusion is less marked. Swelling and protrusion is more marked. (13)Salive :often runs out of mouth. Absent. (14)Bleeding :from the nose, mouth and ears not common. From the nose, mouth and ears Common. (15)Emphysematous bullae :not present on the surface of the lungs. Verycommon on the surface of the lungs. (16)Involuntary discharge :of faeces and urine less common. Of faeces and urine more common. (17)Seminal fluid :at glans is more common. At glans is less common.

(3.) RELYING on these tests which in fact crystallises the well settled medical position, the learned S. P. P. submitted that the position of the ligature mark which is extermely pronounced and ran around the neck of the deceased with no break as also the fact that the fracture and internal injuries were in the front portion of the neck and that a certain amount of haemorrhage had occurred including the oozing of blood from the ears of the deceased, that there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that this was a case of manual strangulation. As regards the presence of the rope around the rafter is concerned, the learned S. P. P. submitted that this is a familiar floy that is invariably resorted to particularly in cases of murder of the wife whereby the body is thereafter suspended with a rope in order to create an impression that the woman had committed suicide. He relies heavily on one crucial fact namely that the deceased was a relatively well built and well nourished young woman and that having regard to her normal body weight, if she had hanged herself that it would have immediately resulted in a total dislocation of the spinal column particularly in the neck area and severence of the spinal cord and the absence of this would not only support but establish the hypothesis that it was a case of manual strangulation. The diametrically opposite view that is propounded by Mr. Deshpande on behalf of the defence is that it is always not possible to fathom as to why a person may be driven to suicide and that in every case of suicide it is neither fair nor correct to ipso facto propound the theory that the suicide was triggered off due to illtreatment or abetment or provocation from the husband or some other person. He cites the typical example of a situation where a person may commit suicide purely out of depression and he submits that unless the medical evidence unimpeahedly points to a homicide and nothing else, that a Court would not be justified in recording a conviction under S. 302, I. P. C. In support of his contention, he has relied on one important admission that has been elicited by the defence in the course of cross-examiantion of the doctor. It was subsequently pointed out that he had the benefit of seeing the dead body and he also had the benefit of seeing the accused who was present in the Court. The deceased was relatively bigger and better built than the accused who was considerably thin and puny and the doctor was specifically asked as to whether in his opinion it appeared at all likely that it was possible for the accused to have single handedly overpowered and strangulated the deceased wife and the doctor has very clearly opined that in his opinion it was extremely unlikely that the accused would have been in a position to do this. The prosecution has grilled the doctor and has asked him as to whether it would not have been possible to strangulate the deceased if she were sleeping or if she were taken by surprise but the doctor has generally struck to his opinion which is based on the fact that the deceased appeared to be the physically stronger of the two. The absence of struggle and injury marks on the body of the deceased was the principal reason for this view. Apart from this, Mr. Deshpande points out to us on the basis of authorities from medical jurisprudence that this is not a case of execution or judicial hanging where the body weight of the person is scientifically evaluated and where a professional hanging is carried out in so far as the knot is strategically positioned in such a way as to cause an immediate shapping of the spinal cord the moment the body weight causes a sudden jerk on the neck area. He has demonstrated that in the majority of suicides where the person does a crude job of the entire operation, that the death invariably occurs due to asphyxia and not due to rupture of the spinal cord and that this is principally because of the tightening of the rope around the neck shuts out the oxygen supply to the body. In this background, he points out that the secondary signs on the face of the deceased particularly and the fact that internal haemmorhage had been caused due to gasping and struggling which manifested itself from the cozing of blood from the ears would all totally support the theory of hanging. He also contends that the absence of injury marks on the deceased and on the person of the accused and the presence of the rope on the rafter would all establish beyond any doubt that this was not a case where the deceased had been murdered and then strung up with a rope in order to make it appear as though it was a case of suicide. Mr. Deshpande has also contended that the doctor who gives evidence has indicated that he is a senior professional who knows his job as is evidenced from the quality of the answers and that the learned trial Judge was fully justified in having placed total reliance on that evidence. It is his submission that this is a case of suicide simpliciter and that because of the unfortunate incident that his client was unnecessarily framed.