JUDGMENT Mohinder Pal, J.:- Respondents Virsa Singh son of Jinda Singh, Dilbag Singh son of Pritam Singh and Kuldip ,Singh son of Pritam Singh were tried by the learned Sessions Judge Faridkot, in case First Information Report No.45 dated March 28, 1994, registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) at Police Station City, Muktsar. Vide judgment dated May 11, 1996, passed by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot, the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them after giving them the benefit of doubt. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Punjab challenging the acquittal of the respondents. 2. The present case was registered on the basis of statement (Exhibit P.E) made by Joginder Singh (P.W.2) on March 28, 1994, wherein he stated that his niece (sister’s daughter) Chhinder Kaur (since deceased) was married to Dilbag Singh (respondent No.2) eight/nine months ago. After some time of marriage relation between Dilbag Singh and Chhinder Kaur became strained. Dilbag Singh did not want to keep Chhinder Kaur with him and had been turning her out of the matrimonial home time and again. On March 27, 1994, Dilbag Singh (respondent) went to the complainant at about 6 P.M and told him Chhinder Kaur was harassing whole of that his family without any rhyme or reason and that the complainant and his relatives should take her along. On March 28, 1994, at about 10 A.M, the complainant along with Ex-Sarpanch Jugraj Singh went to the house of Dilbag Singh order to know the well being of his niece. When they reached there, they found that Chhinder Kaur was lying on the ground and her neck was being pressed by Dilbag Singh while sitting on her breast and the elder brother of Dilbag Singh, namely, Kuldip Singh Fauji had held Chhinder Kaur from her legs. The complainant Jugraj Singh raised an alarm ‘Na Maro, Na Maro’ (don’t kill, don’t kill). Dilbag Singh and Kuldip Singh pushed them aside and ran away from the spot. Chhinder Kaur had died at the spot. Jugraj Singh was left near the dead body while Joginder Singh left to inform the police. The complainant stated that Chhinder Kaur was killed by respondents Dilbag Singh and Kuldip Singh in connivance with their maternal grand-father Virsa Singh (respondent No.1). Chhinder Kaur had died at the spot. Jugraj Singh was left near the dead body while Joginder Singh left to inform the police. The complainant stated that Chhinder Kaur was killed by respondents Dilbag Singh and Kuldip Singh in connivance with their maternal grand-father Virsa Singh (respondent No.1). The police accompanied the complainant to the house of the accused. Inquest report (Exhibit P.C) was prepared. The accused were arrested and after completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented in Court. 3. in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Dr. Kirandeep Kaur (P.W.1), Joginder Singh-complainant (P.W.2), Jugraj Singh (P.W.3), Sampuran Singh, Draftsman (P.WA), Head Constable Malkiat Singh (P.W.5), L.C. Bashir Singh (P.W.6), Inspector Ashwani Kumar (P.W.7) and Assistant Sub Inspector Prem Singh (P.W.8). 4. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused-respondents were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they complained of false implication. Respondent Virsa Singh in his statement stated as under:- I am innocent. Both the co-accused had gone to their fields at the alleged time of occurrence. Chhinder Kaur died by hanging herself with the celling fan and the Panchayat of the Village and respectables removed her dead body from the fan and laid down on the floor. I sent information to the parents of the deceased and also to the police. My co-accused were also summoned from the fields later on where they had gone to irrigate the same. The police concocted this false case in connivance with the complainant party.” 5. Respondents Dilbag Singh and Kuldip Singh also made similar statements. They also examined Anil Kumar Gupta, Document Expert (D.W.1), Joginder Singh (D.W.2) and Gurmej Singh (D.W.3) in their defence. 6. We have heard Mr. V.K. Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the appellant-State of Punjab and Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate, appearing for the respondent and have gone through the records of the case with their help. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State of Punjab-appellant, argued that the prosecution witnesses, brought had the fully supported forward by it, had fully supported the prosecution case, but the learned Sessions Judge totally ignored the same and acquitted the accused. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State of Punjab-appellant, argued that the prosecution witnesses, brought had the fully supported forward by it, had fully supported the prosecution case, but the learned Sessions Judge totally ignored the same and acquitted the accused. The trial Judge did not take into consideration the fact that the marriage of the deceased with respondent No.2 was just about eight/nine months old and relations between them were strained. He referred to the evidence of Dr. Kirandeep Kaur (P.W.1), who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Chhinder Kaur, and argued that the doctor had given a clear-cut opinion that the possibility of hanging in this case was not there. He also argued that presence of abrasions around the neck and face suggest that the deceased had resisted the attempt to strangulate her and that if Chhinder Kaur had died because of hanging, such abrasions would not have been there. He further pointed out, that the occurrence took place at about 10 A.M on March 28, 1994 and the First Information Report was lodged promptly at 11.15 A.M on the same day. He further argued that from the statement of Joginder Singh (complainant), it is established that Chhinder Kaur had died an unnatural death within eight or nine months of her marriage. The prosecution was able to substantiate the charge under Section 302 of the Code against Dilbag Singh and the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code against Kuldip Singh and Virsa Singh as in furtherance of their common intention Dilbag Singh committed the murder by intentionally causing the death of Chhinder Kaur by strangulation. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused­ respondents, supported the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that the conduct of Jugraj Singh and Joginder Singh is highly doubtful as none of them tried to apprehend the accused while they were killing Chhinder Kaur. He also argued that if the accused were having any intention to commit the murder of Chhinder Kaur, Dilbag Singh would not have gone to the house of the complainant a day prior to the occurrence to inform him that Chhinder Kaur was harassing the family at her marital home and that the complainant and his relatives should take her along. He further argued that it is highly improbable that the accused were strangulating Chhinder Kaur exactly at the time when Jugraj Singh and Joginder Singh entered their house and that too by letting the main door of the house remain open. 9. Keeping in view the circumstantial evidence in this case that Chhinder Kaur was married to accused-respondent No.2 Dilbag Singh only eight/nine months prior to her death and relations between them were strained to the extent that he did not want to keep her with him and had been turning her out of the matrimonial home, the first and foremost point for determination in this appeal is whether the death of Chhinder Kaur was natural or unnatural. For determining this point, reference to medical evidence is necessary. 10. Dr. Kirandeep Kaur (P.W.1), had found the following injuries on the dead body of Chhlnder Kaur: “1. Semi circular ligature mark crossing thyroid region of the neck, measuring 18 cms x 1.5 cms in dimension, slightly depressed from nearby skin with ecchymosed margins and paler base. Mark was placed more on left side measuring 11 cms and on right side 7 cms. On dissection underlying musdes were lacerated and the blood was extravasted in subcutaneous tissues and’ nearby. Sheath of carotid artery was also lacerated. Cornu of hyoid bone was fractured along with cartilage of larynx. 2. A brownish parchement like dry abrasion measuring 2 cms x 1.2 cms on the left side of neck, 2 cm away from the mid-line and just below the injury No.1. 3. A linear abrasion 1 cm in length on the right side of face, placed on the lower jaw, 3 cms from the right year lobule.” 11. During cross-examination, Dr. Kirandeep Kaur (P.W.1) was put the following question:- “Looking into the description of injuries Nos. 1 and 3 and ligature mark in semi circle with 11 cms on the left side and 7 cms on the right side tailing towards the ears and with injuries to the hyoid bone and fracture of the cartilage and larynx and if injury No.3 is also taken into consideration, then can you rule out the possibility of this case being a case of hanging, if so what are the reasons? In answer to the said question, Dr. In answer to the said question, Dr. Kirandeep Kaur stated as under:­ “The possibility of hanging in this case was not there because firstly the sight of ligature crossing the thyroid region, secondly, there were signs of asphyxia, and thirdly, there was fracture of cornu hyoid bone and there was laceration of sheath of carotid artery, fracture of cartilage of larynx. There was no other reason with me to decide that it could not be a case of hanging.” 12. The trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment, did not take into account the above opinion expressed by Dr. Kirandeep Kaur (P.W.1). In fact, the trial Court did not at all discuss the medical evidence, which was very essential in the facts and circumstances of the case. Except mentioning that “it was rightly argued on behalf of the accused that in this case the prosecution does not depend upon circumstantial evidence and rather it depends upon the direct evidence of Joginder Singh and Jugraj Singh P. Ws and it was for the prosecution to bring home the guilt to the accused beyond doubt”, the trial Court wrongly ignored the very strong circumstantial evidence that Chhinder Kaur (deceased) was married to Dilbag Singh (accused­respondent No.2) only eight/nine months prior to her death and relations between them were not at all cordial as Dilbag Singh did not want to keep her with him and had been turning her out of the matrimonial home time and again. 13. In the Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, Twenty-Second Edition, the Differences Between Hanging and Strangulation have been given at page 269 and it has been mentioned that in case of strangulation “abrasions and ecchymoses round about the edges of the ligature mark- common”, “injury to the muscles of the neck-common”, “carotid arteries, internal coat ordinarily ruptured”, “fracture of laynx and trachea - often found also hyoid bone” and “scratches, abrasions, fingernail marks and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body - usually present.” In the present case, as has been observed above, the doctor had found the symptoms given in the Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology in the case of strangulation while conducting autopsy on the dead body of Chhinder Kaur. In fact, the basis formed by Dr. In fact, the basis formed by Dr. Kirandeep Kaur (P.W.1) while giving the opinion that the possibility of hanging in this case was not there, completely tally with the signs of strangulation as given by Modi. 14. In view of the facts and circumstances, detailed above, we hold that Chhinder Kaur did not die of hanging but was killed by strangulation. However, the participation of Virsa Singh (respondent No.1), maternal grand-father of Dilbag Singh (respondent No.2), who was aged about 93 years at the time of occurrence, and of Kuldip Singh (respondent No.3), brother of Dilbag Singh, in the crime appears to be doubtful. In fact, there is no evidence against Virsa Singh (respondent No.1) except the bald statement of complainant Joginder Singh that respondents Dilbag Singh and Kuldip Singh had killed Chhinder Kaur in connivance with Virsa Singh. The only evidence against respondent Kuldip Singh is that when Joginder Singh (P.W.2) and Jugraj Singh (P.W.3) reached the house of the accused, they found that Chhinder Kaur (deceased) was lying on the ground and her neck was being pressed by respondent Dilbag Singh while sitting on her breast and his elder brother respondent Kuldip Singh had held Chhinder Kaur from her legs. So far as the evidence of Joginder Singh (P.W.3) and Jugraj Singh (P.W.3) is concerned, no implicit reliance can be placed on their statements because it appears quite improbable that the accused would be strangulating Chhinder Kaur exactly at the time of entrance of the prosecution witnesses into their house. Therefore, we do not interferer in the judgment recorded by the learned Session Judge, Faridkot, so for as acquittal of respondents Virsa Singh and Kuldip Singh of the charge framed against them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code is concerned, though for the reasons mentioned hereinbefore. 15. However, so far as Dilbag Singh (respondent No.2) is concerned, in view of the circumstantial and medical evidence, discussed above, particularly in view of the fact that Chhinder Kaur (deceased) had been married to Dilbag Singh only eight/nine months prior to her death and relations between them were strained and he was not willing to keep her with him his acquittal cannot be sustained. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the judgment of the trial Court regarding acquittal of Dilbag Singh (respondent No.2) is perverse. It is against law and facts on the file. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the judgment of the trial Court regarding acquittal of Dilbag Singh (respondent No.2) is perverse. It is against law and facts on the file. He was acquitted sheerly by resorting to assumptions and presumptions. So, we partly accept this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment so far it orders acquittal of Dllbag Singh (respondent No.2) and convict him under Section 302 of the Code for murdering his wife Chhinder Kaur by strangulation. It being not the rare of the rarest cases, we’ do not find any ground for death penalty. Respondent Dilbag Singh is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for, life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, who would commit Dilbag Singh (respondent No.2) to jail to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence. ——————————