Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1459 (MAD)

Selvaganesh v. State by Inspector of Police

2004-11-05

N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN, PRABHA SRIDEVAN

body2004
Judgment :- Prabha Sridevan, J. The sole accused is the appellant herein. The accused was charged for committing the offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code by kidnapping one Dinesh Kumar @ Appu and also for committing the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by strangling the neck of the said Appu. The trial court found the appellant guilty of both the offences and sentenced the accused to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and awarded a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 364, I.P.C. and in default in payment of fine, to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and six months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment thereof. The appeal is preferred against this judgment. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :- The deceased Dinesh Kumar @ Appu is the son of one Thangamuthu, resident of Vadakku Palpannaicheri and was about 3¬ years old at the time of death. Thangamuthu is P.W.1 and his wife Nagalakshmi @ Pappathi, the mother of the deceased, is P.W.3. Prior to the date of occurrence, i.e. 18.2.2000, the accused Selvaganesh @ Prakash had attempted to misbehave with P.W.3. She complained about this to her husband, P.W.1 and on that very day, P.W.1 intimated the matter to P.W.5, Pakkirisamy, who is the Municipal Ward Councillor. Thereafter, P.W.5 went to the house of the accused and warned him not to repeat the said behaviour. After that incident, the relationship between P.W.1 and P.W.3 on the one hand and the accused on the other hand deteriorated. On 18.2.2000, the deceased Dinesh Kumar @ Appu, who was studying in L.K.G., went to school as usual by the school van and returned home at 5.30 pm. Usually he would go to play for about an hour and he would return at 6.30 pm. On the date of occurrence also, the deceased left his school bag in his house and went out to play. Even after 6.30 pm, he did not return home. Therefore, P.W.3, his mother, went out to search him. P.W.3 saw P.W.4, Uma, who lives just opposite to the house of P.Ws.1 and 3 and asked whether she had seen her son. Even after 6.30 pm, he did not return home. Therefore, P.W.3, his mother, went out to search him. P.W.3 saw P.W.4, Uma, who lives just opposite to the house of P.Ws.1 and 3 and asked whether she had seen her son. P.W.4 told her that she had seen Appu standing in front of the house of the accused, which is three houses to the west of the house of P.W.1. According to her, one of her goats was missing, she had gone out to look for it and when she was returning with the goat, she had seen the accused going to his home carrying Appu on his shoulder. On hearing this, P.W.3 went up to the house of the accused and called out for her son. At about this time around 7p.m., P.W.1 returned from work. P.W.1 is a Sidha Vaidhya, working as an Assistant to a Doctor in Nagapattinam. P.W.3 informed him that their son was missing and she also told him that P.W.4 had seen their son in the company of the accused at about 6.30 pm. P.W.2, Amulraj, who is the neighbour of P.W.1 and one Somasundaram, who is not examined, searched for the child alongwith P.W.1. They entered the house of the accused. P.W.1 saw his son being strangled by the accused. P.W.1 shouted, "vd; kfid bfhy;yhnjlh ghtp". Immediately, the accused escaped through the rear door of his house. This was seen by P.W.2. The child's neck was limp and there was blood trickling from his nose; he was not conscious. So, P.W.1 and P.W.3 took the child to the Government Hospital, Nagapattinam in the vehicle belonging to P.W.1. P.W.9, who was the Duty Doctor at the Hospital, examined the child and pronounced him dead; he also prepared Ex.P.6, the death intimation at 8.20 pm on 18.2.2000. This was received by P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police at Nagore Police Station. P.W.12 went to the Government Hospital. P.W.1 lodged the complaint, Ex.P.1 with P.W.12 and thereafter, P.W.12 went to the Nagore Police Station at 9.45 pm and registered the case in Crime No.48 of 2000. He prepared the Express F.I.R., Ex.P.15 and forwarded the same to the Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam and other high officials. P.W.13, the Investigating Officer, who was at that time the Inspector of Police in Nagore Police Station, received Ex-P15 at 11 pm on 18.2.2000 and rushed to the scene of occurrence. He prepared the Express F.I.R., Ex.P.15 and forwarded the same to the Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam and other high officials. P.W.13, the Investigating Officer, who was at that time the Inspector of Police in Nagore Police Station, received Ex-P15 at 11 pm on 18.2.2000 and rushed to the scene of occurrence. He prepared the observation mahazar, Ex.P.2, which was witnessed by P.W.6 and another; he also prepared the rough sketch, Ex.P.16. On 19.2.2000, P.W.13 conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased at 7 am at the Government Hospital in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars; the inquest report is Ex.P.17. Thereafter, P.W.13 handed over the body along with the requisition, Ex.P.7, for conducting autopsy. Upon receipt of Ex.P.7, the Doctor, P.W.10 conducted the post mortem and found the following :- "Body a male child lies on back with the arms to the sides, hands empty in room remp. with eyelids closed. Hair black in colour 2 cm. slim Black in colour. cris black with symmetrical features, with blood discharge through nose, tongue inside the mouth, teeth 5/5, no evidence 5/5 injuries. On opening the abdomen organs found in ....... On opening the chest, ribs intact, heart weighs about 150 gms, chambers empty, lung right 300 gms, left 250 gms, cpepetail, imphysenetous, on dissecting neck hyoid bone preserved for analysis. There was no haemorrhage in the sutaitaneous plane, stomach ........ with 50 gms of congested, intestines normally distended. Liver 1200 gms cs congested, splean 50 gms cs congested. Each kidney weigh about 50 gms of congested. Bladder empty, pervis intact, skull intact, brain 1200 gms, no haemorrhage. The following viscera were sent for analysis - (1) Stomach and contents (2) Intestine and contents (3) Sample of liver (4) Kidney one (5) Preservation (supersaturated .....) (6) Hyoid bone" The Post Mortem Certificate is Ex.P.8. P.W.13 gave a requisition to the Judicial magistrate for sending the Hyoid Bone for chemical examination. This requisition is marked as Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 is the covering letter to the Judicial Magistrate. Ex.P.5 is the report given by P.W.8, the Doctor, regarding the Hyoid Bone. P.W.13 also gave a requisition for sending the Viscera for chemical analysis. This is marked as Ex.P.13 and the covering letter is marked as Ex.P.14. Ex.P.9 is the chemical analysis report. On receipt of Ex.P.9, P.W.10 gave her final opinion, which is marked as Ex.P.10. Ex.P.5 is the report given by P.W.8, the Doctor, regarding the Hyoid Bone. P.W.13 also gave a requisition for sending the Viscera for chemical analysis. This is marked as Ex.P.13 and the covering letter is marked as Ex.P.14. Ex.P.9 is the chemical analysis report. On receipt of Ex.P.9, P.W.10 gave her final opinion, which is marked as Ex.P.10. According to P.W.10, the cause of death was as follows :- "As per the Bone Case No.68/2000 of officer of the police surgeon Dr. D. Gandhi, H.O.D., Dept. of Forensic Medicine, Thanjavur Medical College, Thanjavur dated 1.3.2000 and as per the above ref. cited, the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia 12 to 24 hours prior to post mortem examination." The Investigating Officer examined the witnesses on 19.2.2000 and arrested the accused at 1330 hours in the presence of witness. He examined the other witnesses on 6.3.2000, 10.3.2000, 20.3.2000, 4.5.2000, concluded his investigation and filed the charge sheet. The accused pleaded not guilty. During the trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and marked 18 exhibits. The accused did not examine any witness on his side nor did he mark any documents. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam found the accused guilty on both counts and hence this appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the oral evidence in this case is full of contradictions and therefore, not much credence can be given to the statements made by the witnesses. The learned counsel also submitted that the inconsistencies with regard to the time at which the various events are said to have taken place also cast serious doubts on the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel wondered if it is natural for a mother, on hearing that her son had been taken by the accused who allegedly had enmity with her, not to immediately go and search for her son in the house of the accused and whether the mother would search for her son in other places and wait for her husband to return home. The learned counsel also submitted that as per Ex.P.1, P.W.1 and his companions, viz., P.W.2 and the other person Somasundaram, had all entered the house of the accused at the same time and all of them shouted that the accused was killing the child - Whereas, the oral evidence indicates that P.W.1 alone saw the occurrence and shouted the above words and that P.W.2 only followed him subsequently. Learned counsel would, therefore, submit that a doubt arises whether the deceased was at all found in the house of the accused. The learned counsel further submitted that there are discrepancies with regard to the time at which P.W.4, Uma is said to have given the information to P.W.3 that she had seen the deceased in the company of the accused. According to him, as per one version, P.W.4 first told this to P.W.3, who later conveyed it to P.W.1, whereas according to P.W.2, P.W.4 gave the information when P.W.1 and P.W.3 were standing together, but according to P.W.4 herself, she first told this to P.W.3 and at about that time, P.W.1 came there from his work and she repeated it to him. When each version differs from the other, not much reliance can be placed on any of these witnesses was the submission of the learned counsel. Learned counsel also submitted that the alleged motive itself is very difficult to believe. P.W.1 has stated in his oral evidence that the misbehaviour of the accused with his wife happened six months earlier,In his complaint, Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has referred to the date of the said misbehaviour as a few days ago, Whereas, P.W.3, the wife of P.W.1, would say that the incident happened in the month of Kaarthigai, which is about three months prior to the date of occurrence. The Ward Councillor, P.W.5, says in his chief-examination that the alleged misbehaviour took place six months before the date of occurrence,whereas in the cross-examination, he would say that it happened in the month of Kaarthigai. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, this would also show that the existence of motive itself is very much in doubt. 4. The other ground on which the learned counsel for the appellant would sustain his appeal is the medical evidence. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, this would also show that the existence of motive itself is very much in doubt. 4. The other ground on which the learned counsel for the appellant would sustain his appeal is the medical evidence. As per Ex.P.5, the chemical analysis report, the Hyoid Bone of the deceased child was intact; the report states, "On examination, there is no evidence of any injury in the specimen". The evidence of P.W.10, the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination is also to the effect that it is possible that the child might have died of asphyxia. The Post Mortem Certificate, Ex.P.10, does not speak of any external injury, "No evidence of external injury". Learned counsel for the appellant would, therefore, submit that when the medical evidence is considered in the light of the evidence of P.W.1, which is to the effect that the deceased was strangling the child with both his hands, it would clearly show that the evidence of P.W.1 is false. If the occurrence took place in the way spoken of by P.W.1, there should have been at least bruises in the neck of the deceased child. The Hyoid Bone of a 3¬ year old child would have easily broken with the pressure exerted by a healthy 19 year old boy. According to the learned counsel, the inconsistencies in the prosecution case stare in the face. The prosecution must be held to have not made out a case to sustain the conviction against the accused. Learned counsel also submitted that the fact that four witnesses have given evidence to support the case of the prosecution cannot be the only reason for convicting the accused. And for this purpose, learned counsel relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Kulandaivelu, In re. [1974 L.W. (Crl.) 147], wherein it was held, "It is not always possible for the accused or the Court to give an answer as to why 'witnesses depose falsely'. 'Suffice it to say that it is for the prosecution to prove their case by reliable evidence'." The Division Bench observed as follows :- "A question is asked as to why should these witnesses implicate the accused falsely? 'Suffice it to say that it is for the prosecution to prove their case by reliable evidence'." The Division Bench observed as follows :- "A question is asked as to why should these witnesses implicate the accused falsely? This is a very difficult question to answer by the accused, as the accused are not expected to know the circumstances under which the witnesses are deposing falsely against them. Even if there is no enmity, there are persons who give false evidence, either because they are influenced or they are coerced or threatened." Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 975 [Bhagirath vs. State of M.P.], wherein it was held as follows :- "The prosecution can succeed by substantially proving the very story it alleges. It must stand on its own legs. It cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defence. Nor can the court, on its own, make out a new case for the prosecution and convict the accused on that basis. When in prosecution for offence of attempt to murder the substratum of the evidence given by the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution was found to be false. The only prudent course, in the circumstances of the case, left to the court was to throw out the prosecution case in its entirety against all the accused." 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that even assuming without granting that there are inconsistencies with regard to the time at which the occurrence took place, the entire evidence, if read together, is believable and the minor discrepancies cannot be given such weight as to discredit the entire case of the prosecution. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would point out that it was the accused who was last seen with the deceased and that P.W.4 has no reason to depose falsely in this regard. P.W.1, P.W.2 and another person by name Somasundaram, all went inside the house of the accused and it possible that P.W.1, the father might have rushed inside, ahead of the others, which is the reason why he alone saw the accused strangling the deceased, after which the accused left the child on the floor and ran away from the rear side of the house, which was seen by P.W.2. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the fact that P.W.1 has referred to the witnesses to the occurrence in the plural in Ex.P.1 cannot be relied on to discredit his evidence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the manner in which the witnesses speak of P.W.4 narrating to others, the fact that she last saw the deceased child and the accused together is very natural and cannot be disbelieved. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that it is only after 6.30 pm that P.W.3, the mother of the child, started becoming anxious; she had searched for her child, made enquiries and by 7 pm, the husband returned home and soon thereafter, they had seen the accused strangling the deceased, as P.W.1 himself described. As regards motive, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that though it is well-settled that when direct evidence is cogent and believable, motive loses importance. However, in this case, even the motive has been well established. There are three witnesses who speak of the untoward incident of misbehaviour of the accused with P.W.3, which occurred prior to 18.2.2000. The fact that at one place, it is said that it occurred some time prior to and at one place, it says six months ago and at another place, it says in the month of Kaarthigai is not sufficient to disbelieve that the incident took place, which resulted in P.W.1 complaining to P.W.5 and P.W.5 reprimanding the accused. Ever since then, the relationship between the two families had deteriorated. The evidence of P.W.1 is that the accused was in the habit of even spitting at P.W.1 if they crossed each other on the streets. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the evidence with regard to the motive is entirely believable. Finally, as regards the medical evidence, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that it is not necessary that in every case of strangulation, whether suicidal or homicidal, the Hyoid Bone should break. It must be remembered that the deceased was only 3¬ years old when he was killed and for such a child, extreme pressure is not required to cause death by asphyxia. According to the prosecution, the oral evidence and the medical evidence point clearly to the guilt of the accused. 6. It must be remembered that the deceased was only 3¬ years old when he was killed and for such a child, extreme pressure is not required to cause death by asphyxia. According to the prosecution, the oral evidence and the medical evidence point clearly to the guilt of the accused. 6. The point to be considered is whether the prosecution has proved its case and whether the discrepancies, if any in the evidence, are such as to discredit the case of the prosecution. 7. Three witnesses speak of the motive, P.Ws.1, 3 and 5. P.W.1, in his evidence, would stated that about six months before the date of occurrence (18.2.2000), the accused had attempted to misbehave with his wife, P.W.3 while she was cooking in her house. According to P.W.1, his wife pushed him away and when P.W.1 returned from work in the night, she informed him of the same. P.W.1 immediately went and informed this to P.W.5, an important person in the village and some others. Ever since that, there was enmity between P.W.1 and his family and the accused. P.W.1 has stated that thereafter, the accused would try to collide against him and would spit on him when they cross each other on streets and it is only because of this enmity that the accused had killed his son. In cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that when he lodged Ex.P.1, the complaint, he did not narrate about this incident because he was in a perturbed mood. In cross-examination, he had further stated that the accused attempted to misbehave with his wife, P.W.3, at about 11 or 12 in the noon, when there was no one else in the house except P.W.3 and that this incident took place in the year 1999 and that when he came home from work at about 7 o' clock in the evening, his wife told him about it and that his wife had spoken about that incident to him alone and that on the very same day, he went and gave a complaint regarding this incident to their Ward Councillor, P.W.5, who lives in the same village in Pillayar Kovil Street and that he did not talk about this to the neighbours or the parents of the accused before he spoke to Pakkirisamy, P.W.5. The further case of P.W.1 is that the next day, P.W.5 came to his house and enquired about the incident and thereafter, he went to the house of the accused and that he did not directly know what transpired in the house of the accused, though P.W.5 later returned to his house and told him that he had warned the accused and had assured that a similar incident would not recur. Therefore, P.W.1 left the matter at that and there was no written complaint with regard to this incident. It is also the case of P.W.1 that before this incident, the accused and P.W.1 and P.W.3 had cordial relationship, but after that incident, the relationship deteriorated totally. 8. P.W.3, in her cross-examination had deposed that the accused had misbehaved with her in the month of Kaarthigai and that her child had died in the month of Maasi. It is her evidence that around noon on a day in the month of Kaarthigai, the accused entered her house when she was along cooking and attempted to misbehave. She shouted for help, but no one came to her rescue. 9. P.W.5, Pakkirisamy, also speaks of the motive. He is the Village Ward Councillor and in his chief-examination, he has stated that about six months before the date of occurrence, when P.W.3 was cooking in her house, the accused entered the house and attempted to misbehave. He has stated as follows :- P.W.5 has stated that thereafter, he went to the house of the accused and told him that he is a young boy and that he must not behave like this in future and that thereafter, he went to the house of P.W.1 and told him that he had reprimanded the accused and that such incident will not recur. In cross-examination, P.W.5 has stated that the incident took place in the month of Kaarthigai and that he does not remember the exact date and he did not speak about this to the police because he thought that it would cause embarrassment to P.W.3. P.W.5 has also stated that it is only P.W.1 who came to him and complained about the incident. P.W.5 has also stated that it is only P.W.1 who came to him and complained about the incident. P.W.5 has further stated that when he went to reprimand the accused, he did not take P.W.1 and P.W.3 with him because he thought that it would create more problems and that he had also asked the parents of the accused to keep him in check and that even before he reprimanded the accused, his parents knew about the incident. 10. In Ex.P.1, the complaint, P.W.1 has stated that some time ago, the accused had attempted to misbehave with his wife, P.W.3 and that in this regard, Councillor Pakkirisamy, P.W.5, had strongly reprimanded the accused and that ever since then, there was enmity between the two families. The learned counsel for the appellant has construed the extract from the evidence of P.W.5 to mean that it was P.W.3 who came and complained to P.W.5 at about 7 pm regarding the incident of misbehaviour. But, as can be seen from the above extract. It could even be construed to mean that P.W.1 who had come to P.W.5 to complain about the incident. Even the cross-examination has not, in any way, diluted the evidence with regard to the incident that took place while P.W.3 was cooking in her house, when the accused attempted to misbehave with her. Therefore, if the evidence is read as a whole, the prosecution has established the case that the accused had developed enmity and hatred for P.W.1 and P.W.3 ever since P.W.5 came to his house and reprimanded him and had asked him to mend his ways. 11. Next, we come to the eye witness and the other witnesses. In this case, three facts must be considered together. One is the evidence of P.W.4 with regard to seeing the accused and the deceased together last; secondly, the actual occurrence, as witnessed by P.W.1; and third is the escape of the accused through the rear side of his house, as spoken to by P.W.2. All the events took place between 6.30 and 7.30 pm on 18.2.2000. The deceased was in the habit of going out to play for about an hour from 5.30 to 6.30 every evening after returning from school. So, it is only when he did not return even after 6.30 pm that his mother, P.W.3, began to get anxious. All the events took place between 6.30 and 7.30 pm on 18.2.2000. The deceased was in the habit of going out to play for about an hour from 5.30 to 6.30 every evening after returning from school. So, it is only when he did not return even after 6.30 pm that his mother, P.W.3, began to get anxious. P.W.3 says that thereafter, she started to search for her child since he did not return after 6.30 pm. P.W.3 saw P.W.4, who said that she saw the accused carrying the deceased to his house. P.W.3 shouted for her child standing outside the house of the accused, since the accused had earlier misbehaved with her, but there was no response. Thereafter, when her husband returned from work, she informed him that their son was missing and that Uma, P.W.4, had told her that the accused had carried the child with him. Immediately thereafter, P.W.1, P.W.2 and one Somasundaram went to the house of the accused, looking for the child. P.W.3 was standing outside the house of the accused when she heard her husband shout, Thereafter, the husband brought the limp body of the child outside. They later took him to the Government Hospital, but the child had died by then. In her cross-examination also, P.W.3 says that when P.W.4 told her about the accused carrying her child to his house, it was about 6.45 pm and at that time, her husband had not returned home and that it was she who informed her husband of P.W.4 telling her that the accused had carried the child with him. P.W.3 would further state in her cross-examination that all of them went to the house of the accused, but she and P.W.4 stayed outside and only the men went inside the house and that thereafter, she saw her husband bringing the child from the house of the accused in an unconscious state and at that time, the parents of the accused were not in the house. 12. P.W.1, in his evidence, had stated that he normally returns home from work at 7 pm and on the fateful day, when he was returning home, his wife, P.W.3, rushed to him and told him that their son was missing. 12. P.W.1, in his evidence, had stated that he normally returns home from work at 7 pm and on the fateful day, when he was returning home, his wife, P.W.3, rushed to him and told him that their son was missing. When he asked her from when was the child missing, she told him that he would normally return after playing by 6.30 pm and since he did not return, she went in search of him and that P.W.4 had told her that at about 6.30 pm, she saw the accused carrying the deceased on his shoulder to his house. Immediately thereafter, P.W.1, P.W.2 and one Somasundaram went all round the place to search for the child and then they went to the house of the accused. The door of the house was open, a light was burning inside and it is the case of P.W.1 that he saw the accused strangling the child with both his hands and he immediately shouted,As soon as the accused heard P.W.1 shout in this manner, he ran away through the rear door of the house. Thereafter, P.W.1 picked up the child, whose head was already limp and blood was trickling from the nostril, and immediately took him to the Nagai Government Hospital. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 had stated that even before he returned from work, P.W.4 had told his wife that the accused had carried their child to his house and that according to his information, this was about 6.30 pm and that it is possible to see what is happening inside the house of the accused if the door is opened and that when he went inside the house of the accused, he saw the accused laying his child on the floor and strangling his neck. He immediately shouted and the accused ran away through the rear door of the house. According to P.W.1, when he picked up the child to take him to the hospital, it was around 7.30 pm. 13. P.W.2 is the neighbour of P.W.1 and P.W.3 and he corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused left his house through the rear door. According to P.W.1, when he picked up the child to take him to the hospital, it was around 7.30 pm. 13. P.W.2 is the neighbour of P.W.1 and P.W.3 and he corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused left his house through the rear door. P.W.2 is a mason by profession and it is his case that on 18.2.2000, he was returning home at about 6.30 pm and at that time, P.W.1 and P.W.3 were searching for their child and at that time, P.W.4 came there and told them that the accused had taken their child to his house. Thereafter, P.W.2, P.W.1 and one Somasundaram went to the house of the accused and there, he saw that the child was lying on the floor and on seeing them, the accused ran away through the rear door of the house. The child was limp and they immediately took him to the hospital. In his chief-examination, P.W.2 has stated that P.W.1 went inside the house of the accused before P.W.2 and when he went inside, he saw the child lying on the floor and the accused running through the rear door. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that when P.W.1, Somasundaram and he entered the house, P.W.3 did not accompany them. 14. P.W.4 is the witness who had last seen the deceased child in the company of the accused. According to her evidence, on 18.2.2000, she went in search of one of her goats which was missing and at that time, she saw the deceased and the accused standing in front of the house of the latter. When she returned after finding her missing goat, she saw the accused entering his house carrying the deceased on his shoulder. Thereafter, she went to her house, tethered the goat and it is only then that P.W.3 came and asked her whether she had seen her son and she informed her that the accused had taken the deceased to his house. At that time, P.W.1 also arrived at the scene and she repeated the information to him as well. Thereafter, P.W.1, P.W.2 and Somasundaram went inside the house of the accused. At that time, P.W.1 also arrived at the scene and she repeated the information to him as well. Thereafter, P.W.1, P.W.2 and Somasundaram went inside the house of the accused. She and P.W.3 stood outside the house and then she heard P.W.1 shouting that his son was being strangled by the accused, Thereafter, all that she saw was P.W.1 coming out with the child who was limp and whose nose was bleeding and after that, P.W.1 and P.W.2 took the child to the hospital. In her cross-examination, P.W.4 had stated that it was about 6.30 pm when she saw the accused taking the deceased with him and it was around that time that P.W.3 also came in search of her son. This witness also says that on that day, the parents of the accused were not at home and that they had gone for a wedding and that the accused was alone in the house. 15. From the above, it is seen that the witnesses have deposed to the effect that the entire incident occurred between 6.30 and 7.30 pm. Around 6.30 pm, P.W.4 has seen the deceased child with the accused. Normally, the child returns home around 6.30 pm and so, it is quite natural that the mother had started looking for her child by around 6.45 pm, at which time she got the information from P.W.4 that the accused had taken her child with him. She has thereafter come to the house of the accused and shouted for her son from outside, but there was no response. At about 7 pm, P.W.1 had returned from work and P.W.3 informed him that their child was missing. Around the same time, P.W.4 repeats the information to P.W.1 that she had seen the child with the accused. By that time, P.W.2 and Somasundaram also gather at the scene and they enter the house of the accused in search of the missing child. The mere fact that in Ex.P.1, the plural pronoun is used is not really fatal to the case of the prosecution. All the witnesses speak of the three of them entering the house of the accused. It is the evidence that upon opening the door, P.W.1 went inside the house ahead of others, which is quite natural, he being the father of the child. All the witnesses speak of the three of them entering the house of the accused. It is the evidence that upon opening the door, P.W.1 went inside the house ahead of others, which is quite natural, he being the father of the child. So, P.W.1 must have been the first person and the only person to see what the accused was doing and by the time P.W.2 came upon the scene upon hearing the cries of P.W.1, the accused ran away through the rear door and that is why P.W.2 only saw the child lying on the floor, but not the actual act of the accused strangling the child. There is nothing to show that P.W.3, the mother had unduly wasted her time in searching for her child in other places. She knew that the accused had taken her child to his house. From the evidence of P.W.4 corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3, it is clear that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused. P.W.1 had seen the accused committing the offence and P.W.2 had seen him run away from the scene of crime where the deceased was still lying down. So the evidence clearly shows that the accused had committed the act which had resulted in child's death. 16. Net we come to the medical evidence. According to P.W.10, the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination, the child must have died because of asphyxia and in those circumstances, bleeding from the nose is possible - Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidence of P.W.10 is to the effect that the tongue was inside the mouth of the deceased and when there were no external injuries, it is extremely unbelievable that P.W.1 should have seen the accused strangling the child with both his hands. The chemical analysis report regarding the Hyoid Bone, Ex.P.5 also says that the Hyoid Bone is intact. Therefore, it was contended that the child did not die on account of strangulation and that the case of the prosecution in this regard cannot be believed. 17. The chemical analysis report regarding the Hyoid Bone, Ex.P.5 also says that the Hyoid Bone is intact. Therefore, it was contended that the child did not die on account of strangulation and that the case of the prosecution in this regard cannot be believed. 17. The evidence of P.W.10, the Doctor, shows that the child could have died of asphyxia and the manner in which death by axphyxia could happen is also spoken to by her as follows :- P.W.10 has also stated that the injuries to the larynx and trachea may not always be evident when there is death by asphyxia - She has also explained that normally, when a child dies of asphyxia, the lips are turned blue, but in this case, since the child was a dark child, it was difficult to note it. She has admitted that she has not specifically spoken about the colour of the lips and the finger nails of the deceased child. She has specifically stated that since intense pressure is not required if the victim is a young child, the absence of external injuries is not material - 18. In Modi's 'Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology' - XXII Edition, while dealing with death from asphyxia and explaining the internal appearance, it is stated as follows:- "Sometimes, there is laceration of the sheath of the carotid arteries, as also their internal coats with effusion of blood into their walls. The cornua of the hyoid bone may be fractured, also the superior cornua of thyroid cartilage but fracture of the cervical vertebrae is extremely rare." Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, therefore, contended that in all cases of asphyxia the hyoid bone need not be broken and that merely because the Hyoid Bone is intact, it cannot be said that the child did not die of asphyxia. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the child was only 3¬ years old at the time of the occurrence and the accused was a 19 year old young man and therefore, it may not have been necessary for the accused to exert much pressure to cause the death of the child. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the child was only 3¬ years old at the time of the occurrence and the accused was a 19 year old young man and therefore, it may not have been necessary for the accused to exert much pressure to cause the death of the child. The blood discharge from the nose of the deceased is one evidence of death due to asphyxia, as seen from the Modi's textbook referred to above which states, "Sometimes, pure blood issues from the mouth, nose and ears, especially if great violence has been used." 19. The alleged discrepancies with regard to the manner in which P.W.4 has informed one or the other of the parents of the deceased regarding the accused carrying the deceased are immaterial. It is true that it is not clear whether P.W.4 told about this to P.W.3 first and then to P.W.1 or to both of them at the same time, but the fact remains that it was P.W.4 who had last seen the deceased with the accused and her evidence is cogent and extremely believable and she has no reason to depose in favour of the prosecution. Therefore, even if there is a discrepancy in regard to whether P.W.4 informed of her seeing the deceased with the accused on two separate occasions to P.W.1 and P.W.3 or at the same time, that can hardly discredit her evidence. 20. P.Ws.2 and 4 are independent witnesses and also natural witnesses. There is no reason why these witnesses cannot be believed. As already stated, it is clear from the ocular evidence that it was only P.W.1 who saw the accused causing the death of the deceased by strangling his neck. 21. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has clearly proved that the accused is guilty of the offences charged with and we see no reason to differ from the judgment of the trial court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.