Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 133 (GAU)

Ranjit Urang v. State of Tripura

2013-02-27

S.C.DAS, U.B.SAHA

body2013
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order of conviction and sentence dated 11.08.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in S.T. No. 35 (NT/K) of 2005. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused-appellants Ranjit Urang and Radhiram Urang guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. Hence, this appeal. Heard learned counsel, Mr. S. Chakraborty for the appellants and learned P.P., Mr. D. Sarkar for the respondents. 2. Fact of the case may be summarized thus:- 2.1. Shyamlal Urang (victim), aged about 24 years with his wife, Shrimali Urang (P.W. 2) and their minor son were in their hut at Natingcherra Tea garden on 14.01.2004 at about 10/10.30 p.m. His younger brother Rabi Lal Urang, P.W. 1 and his parents were in separate huts in the same house premises. At that time, Subin Urang, Radhiram Urang and Ranjit Urang, all Tea Garden workers, came to the house of Shyamlal and wanted him to go with them, but he denied. Thereafter, they forcefully took him with them and went away. After about half/one hour of taking away of Shyamlal, the inmates of the house heard alarm raised by Shyamlal and apprehending that something wrong might have happened, Rabi Lal (P.W. 1), Shrimati Urang (P.W. 2) along with parents of Shyamlal went out on a search in the neighbourhood, but could not trace out Shyamlal. They conducted search up to about 3 a.m. of the night, but, could not trace out him. In the early morning of 15.01.2004, they again went out on a search and at about 8/8.30 a.m., they found body of Shyamlal suspended with a nylon rope from a branch of tree, in the backside of the office of Natingcherra Tea Estate. The rope was tied round the mouth of Shyamlal and a muffler was tied round the neck. They raised alarm and neighbouring people gathered there and found Shyamlal in hanging condition, already dead. 2.2. The rope was tied round the mouth of Shyamlal and a muffler was tied round the neck. They raised alarm and neighbouring people gathered there and found Shyamlal in hanging condition, already dead. 2.2. Sushital Debnath (P.W. 11), Upa-pradhan of the village, over telephone informed Kailashahar P.S. that one dead body was found hanging in a tree near Natingcherra Tea Garden office complex and on that information, S.I., Sima Biswas (P.W. 12), the duty officer of the P.S., recorded G.D. Entry No. 609 dated 15.01.2004 (Exbt. 4) and pursuant to that information, O.C. of the P.S. directed S.I. Bipin Deb Barma, P.W. 15 and A.S.I., Kshitish Sarkar (P.W. 14) to enquire about the information and accordingly, they with police staff left for Natingcherra Tea Estate. 2.3. When police reached the spot i.e. near the office of Natingcherra Tea Estate, dead body of Shyamlal was brought down by the police with the help of the neighbouring people and P.W. 14 prepared inquest report over the dead body. On the spot, P.W. 1 Rabi Lal Urang, brother of the deceased, lodged an F.I.R. written by P.W. 11 and it was received by P.W. 15 and he forwarded the same to the O.C. of the P.S., who accordingly, registered Kailashahar P.S. Case No. 02 of 2004 under Section 302 /201 /34 of IPC and S.I., S. Basu Roy Choudhury was entrusted with the charge of investigation. 2.4. In the F.I.R., it was alleged by Rabi Lal Urang (P.W. 1) that on 14.01.2004 at about 10.30 p.m. Subin Urang, Radhiram Urang and Ranjit Urang together came to their house and called his brother Shyamlal and forcefully took him (Shyamlal) away with them. Shyamlal did not return home thereafter. On a search, they found the dead body on 15.01.2004 in the morning, hanging with muffler and rope from the branch of a tree in the backside of Natingcherra Tea Estate office and he was dead. The knot of the rope was round the mouth of the deceased. He has mentioned that those three persons after killing his brother kept the dead body hanging with the nylon rope and muffler. 2.5. In the course of investigation, IO has examined all material witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After preparation of inquest report, dead body was forwarded for postmortem examination and, accordingly, postmortem examination was done by Dr. 2.5. In the course of investigation, IO has examined all material witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After preparation of inquest report, dead body was forwarded for postmortem examination and, accordingly, postmortem examination was done by Dr. Asish Kumar Rakshit of RGM Hospital and I.O. collected the postmortem report. In course of investigation, I.O. arrested the accused Radhiram Urang on 15.01.2004 and Ranjit Urang on 21.01.2004. Accused Subin Urang had absconded and it was reported that he left for Bangladesh. On completion of investigation, I.O. submitted charge sheet against FIR named accused, Radhiram Urang, Ranjit Urang and Subin Urang, showing Subin Urang as absconder, for commission of offence punishable under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2.6. Cognizance was taken on the basis of police report and, thereafter, in due course, on commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.7. In course of trial prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses. Out of the witnesses, PWs 1 and 2 were the younger brother and wife respectively of the deceased Shyamlal and they were the star witnesses of the prosecution. P.W. 3 was a co-villager and he went to the spot, where the dead body was hanging, on seeing the gathering and he carried the dead body to the hospital with his auto rickshaw. P.W. 4 Sri Sankar Suklabaidya, P.W. 5 Sri Siddhartha Pal, P.W. 6 Smt. Chitta Urang, P.W. 7 Sri Batlu Urang, P.W. 8 Sri Suhan Garb, P.W. 9 Sri Dhamma Urang and P.W. 10 Sri Kamana Urang, all were tea garden labours and out of them P.W. 10 was the elder brother of the deceased, who used to live in a different house, a little away from the house of the deceased. P.W. 11 Sri Sushital Debnath was the Upa-pradhan of the Panchayat, who was also the scribe of the FIR. P.W. 13 Sri Norattam Singh was a constable of police, who guarded the dead body. P.W. 12 SI Sima Biswas was the duty officer of PS, who at the relevant point of time received telephonic information from P.W. 11 and made the GD entry. P.W. 16 was the medical officer, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body. P.W. 13 Sri Norattam Singh was a constable of police, who guarded the dead body. P.W. 12 SI Sima Biswas was the duty officer of PS, who at the relevant point of time received telephonic information from P.W. 11 and made the GD entry. P.W. 16 was the medical officer, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body. P.W. 14 had prepared the inquest report over the dead body and P.W. 15 was the I.O. of the case. 2.8. Prosecution witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined by the defence. After the closer of prosecution evidence, accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in their turn, they declined to adduce any defence evidence. Defence case was nothing but, a bare denial of the prosecution case. It was suggested in cross-examination of P.W. 2 that her husband, the deceased Shyamlal, committed suicide by hanging. 3. Certain facts were not denied or disputed. Those are-- I. Deceased Shyamlal Urang with his wife (P.W. 2), Shrimati Urang and their child used to reside in a hut in the village Natingcherra Tea garden. His brother Rabi Lal Urang (P.W. 1) along with their parents also used to reside in separate hut, but in the same house premises. II. Shyamlal, his brother Rabi Lal and P.Ws. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as well as the accused-appellants and the absconder accused Subin, all were labourers of Natingcherra Tea Estate and were residents of the same village. III. On 14.01.2004 at about 10 p.m., Shyamlal was in his hut with his other family members. IV. Dead body of Shyamlal was found hanging from the branch of a tree at the back side of the office of Natingcherra Tea Estate about half k.m. away from the house of Shyamlal. V. A rope was found tied round the mouth of Shyamlal with which he was found hanging. VI. Dead body was brought down after arrival of police in the afternoon. 4. P.Ws. 1 and 2 i.e. the brother and wife of the deceased were the star witness of the prosecution. They have categorically stated that at about 10/10.30 p.m., the three accused appellants, Radhiram and Ranjit, along with absconder Subin came to their house and forcefully taken away Shyamlal from the house. That fact has also been stated in the F.I.R. lodged by P.W. 1, Rabi Lal Urang. 5. They have categorically stated that at about 10/10.30 p.m., the three accused appellants, Radhiram and Ranjit, along with absconder Subin came to their house and forcefully taken away Shyamlal from the house. That fact has also been stated in the F.I.R. lodged by P.W. 1, Rabi Lal Urang. 5. In his deposition, P.W. 1 Rabi Lal stated that on 14.01.2004 at night at about 10.30 p.m., he was in his hut and his brother Shyamlal also was in his hut. At that time, Radhiram, Ranjit and Subin came to their house and they forcefully took away his brother Shyamlal from their house along with them. At first, they (accused persons) requested his brother to go with them to attend an invitation elsewhere. Thereafter, they forcefully took him with them. Shrimati Urang, wife of Shyamlal was also present in the house at the time of forceful taking away of his brother. After about half an hour, he and his sister-in-law, Shrimati heard an alarm raised by his brother from the eastern side of their house. His parents and his wife were also present in the house. After hearing of alarm, he along with his parents and sister-in-law went out of their house and conducted search up to 3 a.m., but, could not trace out his brother. On the following morning, he along with his parents and sister-in-law again went out to search his brother since he did not return and during search at about 8/8.30 a.m., they saw the dead body of Shyamlal hanging from a branch of tree in the back side of the office of Natingcherra Tea Estate. They found one muffler in tied condition round the neck of his brother and one rope in tied condition round the mouth of his brother. The distance between their house and the office of Natingcherra Tea Garden will be about half k.m. They raised alarm and neighbouring people came there. At about 11.30 a.m., police personnel came there and brought down the dead body from hanging condition. Police prepared inquest report over the dead body and he signed the inquest report. He lodged F.I.R. to the police officer narrating the incident of murder of his brother. The F.I.R. was written by Sushital Debnath (P.W. 11) on his request and he being satisfied signed the F.I.R. and proved it as Exbt. 2. Police arrested Radhiram after the F.I.R. was lodged. He lodged F.I.R. to the police officer narrating the incident of murder of his brother. The F.I.R. was written by Sushital Debnath (P.W. 11) on his request and he being satisfied signed the F.I.R. and proved it as Exbt. 2. Police arrested Radhiram after the F.I.R. was lodged. Radhiram Urang, Ranjit Urang and Subin Urang were known to him. 6. P.W. 2, in her deposition stated that she along with her husband Shyamlal were cooking food at the relevant time on that day at about 10 p.m. in their dwelling hut. There was electric light in their house. At that time, Radhiram Urang, Ranjit Urang and Subin Urang came to their house and asked her husband to go with them. Her husband refused to go with them and thereafter, he was forcefully taken away by them from her house. It was about 10/10.30 p.m., when her husband was taken away. After about an hour, she heard alarm raised by her husband. Hearing the alarm, she along with her brother-in-law and her parents-in-law conducted search in the nearby area up to about 3 a.m. of the night, but, could not trace out her husband. Her brother-in-law Rabi Lal was residing in the same premises in a separate hut. At the time of incident, electric light was in their house. On the following day, in the early morning, she along with Rabi Lal and her parents-in-law again conducted search for her husband and during search at about 8 a.m., they saw the dead body of her husband hanging from a branch of tree in the back side of the office of Natingcherra Tea Estate. She cried out loudly and hearing cries, neighbouring people came there. She found a rope was tied around the mouth of her husband and a muffler in tied condition in the neck of her husband. Sometimes thereafter, police officer came and brought down the dead body. 7. Above statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2 have not been shaken in any manner in the cross-examination. The statements stand cogent, consistent authentic and inspiring. Defence could not destroy the truthfulness or authenticity of the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2 in any manner. 8. Learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty appearing for the accused-appellants contended that the G.D. Entry i.e. Exbt. 4 should be treated as F.I.R. in the facts and circumstances of the case. Exbt. The statements stand cogent, consistent authentic and inspiring. Defence could not destroy the truthfulness or authenticity of the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2 in any manner. 8. Learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty appearing for the accused-appellants contended that the G.D. Entry i.e. Exbt. 4 should be treated as F.I.R. in the facts and circumstances of the case. Exbt. 2, which has been registered as F.I.R. cannot be regarded as such, since it was lodged subsequent to the first information about the incident was given to the PS over telephone by P.W. 11, Sushital Debnath. Learned P.P., on the other hand has submitted that Sushital being a Upa-pradhan while came to know on hearsay that a dead body was found hanging in the back side of the office of Natingcherra Tea Estate, simply informed the police over telephone and that information was recorded in the G.D., which is marked as Exbt. 4. When the police officer reached the spot, the F.I.R. was lodged written by P.W. 11 at the dictation of P.W. 1. So, the G.D. Entry (Exbt. 4) cannot be regarded as F.I.R. of a cognizable offence. 9. Let us first see what P.W. 11 in his deposition stated. He deposed that on 15.01.2004 in the morning at about 10.30 a.m., some workers of Natingcherra Tea Estate went to his house and informed him that a dead body of a worker of that tea garden was found hanging from the branch of a tree near the office of that tea garden and requested him to give information to the police to bring down the dead body. Accordingly, he informed the fact to the duty officer of Kailashahar P.S. over telephone and thereafter, at about noon, he went near the office of Natingcherra Tea Garden and found police personnel also arrived there. P.W. 12 has stated that she was on duty as duty officer of P.S. at about 11 a.m. and she received a telephonic information from Sushital Debnath, Upa-pradhan of Sonaimuri Gram Panchayat that he has received an information that one dead body was hanging in a tree near Natingcherra Tea Garden office complex and Sushital could not give any more details about the name of the deceased and the cause of death etc. and therefore, she recorded the information in G.D. book of the P.S. vide G.D. Entry No. 609 dated 15.01.2004. and therefore, she recorded the information in G.D. book of the P.S. vide G.D. Entry No. 609 dated 15.01.2004. Referring to cross-examination of P.W. 1, learned defence counsel, Mr. Chakraborty argued that Sushital reached to the spot before arrival of police and so, it might happen that the real fact was suppressed at the time of informing the P.S. when G.D. Entry was made. In cross-examination, P.W. 1 stated Sushital Debnath is the Pradhan of their village Natingcherra. Before arrival of police officer, Sushital Debnath came to the place where the dead body was hanging and at that time, he (P.W. 1, Rabi Lal) narrated the occurrence to Sushital. The sequence of the events as stated above makes it clear that Sushital was first informed by some labourers about a dead body in hanging condition in Natingcherra without any more details and he reported that fact to the P.S. over telephone. After reporting the P.S., he came to the spot might be immediately before or after the arrival of police and that does not create any doubt on the basic version of the witnesses that Sushital simply informed about a dead body found hanging and nothing more. In the circumstances, we find nothing to appreciate the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty that Exbt. 2 cannot be regarded as F.I.R. and that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is already brought on record that the victim, accused persons, family members of the victim and other witnesses were all Tea Garden labourers and mostly illiterate. We cannot expect that immediately after the occurrence, they will be rushing to the P.S. to lodge an F.I.R. The P.S. was at a distance of 20 k.m. from the tea garden, so far it revealed in the prescribed form of FIR. We find nothing unnatural in the conduct of the witnesses so far as the telephonic information is concerned, given by P.W. 11. In the case of Ramdas & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 2 SCC 170 , the Supreme Court has observed that: ...different cases have different facts and it is the totality of evidence and the impact that it has on the mind of the court that is important. No straitjacket formula can be evolved in such matters, and each case must rest on its own facts. No straitjacket formula can be evolved in such matters, and each case must rest on its own facts. It is settled law that however, similar the circumstances, facts in one case cannot be used as a precedent to determine the conclusion on the facts in another (Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1955 SC 216 ). Thus mere delay in lodging of the report may not by itself be fatal to the case of the prosecution, but the delay has to be considered in the background of the facts and circumstances in each case and is a matter of appreciation of evidence by the court of fact. In the present case, we are of considered opinion that the Trial Judge rightly considered the facts of the case and rightly relied on the F.I.R., which is marked as Exbt. 2. 10. The next and most important argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty is that the opinion of autopsy surgeon, which is the basis of the allegation of murder, is doubtful and not consistent with the principles annunciated in the medical jurisprudence. He has contended that based on such medical evidence of P.W. 16, it was improper for the trial judge in recording a conviction of murder. Learned P.P., on the other hand has submitted that the autopsy surgeon has given his clear opinion in respect of cause of death. He is an expert in the field and his opinion has been taken by the Court, which is bound to be relied on since the opinion has not been shaken in the cross-examination referring to any authority and so, there is no question of having a doubt in respect of opinion given by P.W. 16 about the cause of death of the deceased. 11. The deceased Shyamlal was a strong, stout, young, able bodied man when he was alleged to have taken away by the three accused persons. At about 10/10.30 p.m., he was taken away and dead body was found hanging in the early morning of the following day. We shall discuss the evidence on last seen together theory later on. Let us now only discuss in respect of the medical evidence. Since the body was found in a suspending condition and more so, in suspicious position, the medical evidence bears lot of importance. 12. P.Ws. 1 and 2 categorically made the statement that they found a muffler (Exbt. We shall discuss the evidence on last seen together theory later on. Let us now only discuss in respect of the medical evidence. Since the body was found in a suspending condition and more so, in suspicious position, the medical evidence bears lot of importance. 12. P.Ws. 1 and 2 categorically made the statement that they found a muffler (Exbt. M.O. 3) in tied condition round the neck of the deceased. They also stated that the body was suspended from the branch of tree with a nylon rope tied round the mouth. The witnesses, who gathered mere hearing the alarm, all found the dead body in a hanging condition and all of them were reported by P.W. 1 that his brother Shyamlal was taken away from the house by the accused persons on the previous night at about 10/10.30 p.m. P.Ws. 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14 and 15, all has made categorical statement that they found a muffler tied round the neck of the deceased in hanging condition. All those witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14 and 15 stated that the nylon rope and/or ligature with which the dead body was suspended, was found tied round the mouth of the deceased. 13. The inquest report (Exbt. 1) prepared by P.W. 14 consists a statement that the dead body was seen hanging with a nylon rope and there was dress in the wearing of the dead body. The knot of the rope was on the back of the neck and head and head was bent towards front of the body. After bringing down the dead body, it was found that the eyes were closed, marks of dry blood could be seen from the nose and mouth. Black coloured marks were seen in both side of the vocal cord and the nylon rope was found round the mouth and neck and mark of rope was present There was a muffler round the neck and the deceased was wearing a shirt and a jacket and a full pent After removing the dress, the body was examined and it was found that there was dry clay in the left side of the back and on the waist and in right side of the left leg something blood like red colour was present. No stool was found in the anus and slight semen was seen in the male organ. Legs of the body were found touching the ground. 14. P.W. 16, Dr. Asish Kumar Rakshit in his deposition stated that he conducted post mortem examination over the dead body on 16.01.2004 at about 11.15 a.m. It was the dead body of Shyamlal Urang, a male aged about 24 years of Natingcherra. The dead body was identified by Rabi Lal Urang and the Constable of police, Norattam Singh (P.Ws. 1 and 13 respectively). He stated that on examination, he found- 1. Circular deep impression of ligature mark passing through both angles of mouth upto occipital region which was completely encircling the base of the scalp. 2. Rigor mortis were present and the dead body was found in stout condition. 3. Abrasion on the edge of ligature mark. On dissection of the dead body he found as follows:- 1. thorax, abdomen, liver, spleen, kidney were found congested. All other organs were found intact. Tongue was found not protruded. Neck was found not stretched or elongated. Saliva was found absent and both eyes were found closed. In his opinion the cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia following homicidal strangulation. The time of death was less than 48 hours from the time of his P.M. Exam. He proved P.M. Exam. report of deceased Shamlal Urang, and on identification it was marked Ext. 7 along with his signature. He has further stated-- The ligature mark found on both the angles of mouth upto occipital region was ante mortem in nature and it was not a case of suicide by hanging. In case of suicide the ligature mark ought to have been found on the throat of the deceased and the tongue of the deceased ought to have been found in protruded condition. In cross-examination, he stated-- Except the external injuries stated by him in chief no other external injury was found over the dead body. He did not find any rope with the dead body. The ligature mark found on the both angles of mouth was of rape. It was true that he has not mentioned in his report that the ligature mark found by him was ante mortem in nature. He denied that suggestion that the neck of the deceased was not found by him in not stretched or elongated condition. The ligature mark found on the both angles of mouth was of rape. It was true that he has not mentioned in his report that the ligature mark found by him was ante mortem in nature. He denied that suggestion that the neck of the deceased was not found by him in not stretched or elongated condition. He also denied that suggestion that saliva was present in the mouth. He further denied the suggestion that that he did not conduct the P.M. Exam property. 15. Learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty submitted that the autopsy surgeon found the neck was not stretched or elongated and so, it cannot be said to be a case of strangulation; since the neck was not stretched or elongated, it must be a case of hanging. On the other hand, learned P.P. has contended that in a case of hanging, neck must be stretched or elongated and since the neck was not stretched or elongated, it was the surest case that it was not a case of hanging. But, after killing the deceased, dead body was suspended by those three accused persons with a rope tying it round the mouth and occipital region of head of the deceased. 16. A strong and able bodied young man was taken away forcefully or otherwise as alleged by the accused persons from his house at about 10/10.30 p.m. and dead body was found in suspended condition on the following morning. So, either he has committed suicide by hanging or somebody after committing murder suspended the body with the nylon rope (Exbt. M.O. 1) from the branch of the tree. 17. There is no iota of evidence on record that the deceased might commit suicide for any reason whatsoever at the relevant point of time. It is brought on record in the evidence of P.W. 9, Shri Dharma Urang, a neighbour of that locality that the accused persons stolen a cow of P.W. 9 and eaten up the cow and the deceased stood as witness in the incident for which, the accused persons got animus with the deceased. There is nothing more in the evidence on record that anybody else had any sort of ill-relation with the deceased. 18. Violent death, resulting chiefly from asphyxia, are: hanging, strangulation, throttling, suffocation and drowning. There is nothing more in the evidence on record that anybody else had any sort of ill-relation with the deceased. 18. Violent death, resulting chiefly from asphyxia, are: hanging, strangulation, throttling, suffocation and drowning. Hanging is a form of death produce by suspending the body with a ligature from the neck, the constructing force being the weight of the body. Signs and symptoms which are generally available in cases of hanging as observed by Jaising P. Modi, in his medical jurisprudence and topology reads thus:- Other Signs. - The neck is found stretched and elongated, and the head is always inclined to the side opposite to the knot and the arms of the loop of ligature. The face is usually pale and placid, but may be swollen and congested if the body has been long suspended. Petechial haemorrhages are occasionally seen on the face, under the conjunctiva and neck. The eyes are closed or partly open, and the pupils are usually dilated. The tongue is drawn in, or caught between the teeth, or protruded and bitten. It is usually swollen and blue, especially at the base. Bloody froth is sometimes seen at the mouth and nostrils. Saliva is often found running out of an angle of the mouth down on the chin and chest This is a sure sign of hanging having taken place during life, as the secretion of saliva being a vital function cannot occur after death. The hands are often clenched, especially in violent hanging. Turgescence of the genital organs generally occurs in both sexes from hypostasis. Seminal fluid is sometimes present at the urethral meatus, but it is not a diagnostic sign of hanging, as it has often been observed by Modi in those who suddenly died from mechanical violence. Escape of urine and faces is often found from relaxation of the sphincters; it is also of no diagnostic value, as it is seen in other forms of death. Post mortem staining will be seen in the arms and legs of the body if suspension has been continued for some time after death. 19. A strangulation is a violent form of death, which results from constricting the neck by means of a ligature or by any other means without suspending the body. It is called throttling when constriction is produced by the pressure of the fingers and palms upon the throat. 19. A strangulation is a violent form of death, which results from constricting the neck by means of a ligature or by any other means without suspending the body. It is called throttling when constriction is produced by the pressure of the fingers and palms upon the throat. Strangulation may also be brought about by compressing the throat with a foot, knee, bend of elbow, or some other solid substance. If the windpipe is compressed so suddenly as to occlude the passage of air altogether, the individual is rendered powerless to call for assistance, becomes insensible and dies instantly. If the windpipe is not completely closed, the face becomes cyanosed, bleeding occurs from the mouth, nostrils and cars, the hands are clenched and convulsions precede death. As hanging, insensibility is very rapid, and death is quite painless. Appearances due to Asphyxia, as per Modi in a case of strangulation are:- The face is puffy and cyanosed, and marked with petechiae. The eyes are prominent and open. In some cases they may be closed. The conjunctivae are congested, and the pupils are dilated. Petechiae are seen in the eyelids and the conjunctivae. The lips are blue. Bloody foam, escapes from the mouth and nostrils, and sometimes pure blood issues from the mouth, nose and ears, especially if great violence has been used. The tongue is often swollen, bruised, protruding and dark in colour, showing patches of extravasation and occasionally bitten by the teeth. There may be evidence of bruising at the back of the neck. The hands are usually clenched. The genital organs may be congested and there may be discharges of urine, faeces and seminal fluid. Internal Appearances. - There is extravasation of blood into the subcutaneous tissues under the ligature mark or finger marks, as well as in the adjacent muscles of the neck, which are usually lacerated. 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 cornua of thyroid cartilage but fracture of the cervical vertebrae is extremely rare. These should be carefully observed in situ as they are difficult to distinguish from dissection artifacts in the neck. The larynx and trachea are congested, and contain frothy mucus. The cornua of the hyoid bone may be fractured, also the cornua of thyroid cartilage but fracture of the cervical vertebrae is extremely rare. These should be carefully observed in situ as they are difficult to distinguish from dissection artifacts in the neck. The larynx and trachea are congested, and contain frothy mucus. The cartilages of the larynx or the rings of the trachea may be fractured, when considerable force is used. It should be noted here that the hyoid bone is not, as a rule, fractured by any other means than by strangulation, although the larynx and trachea may, in rare cases, be fractured by a fall. Post-mortem fracture of the hyoid bone is characterized by absence of haemorrhage in the tissues around the fracture. Jungmichel reports the case of a labourer who fell from a roof and sustained a longitudinal fracture of the thyroid cartilage, fracture of the left ramus of the mandible and a compound fracture of the left humerus. Chatterji relates the case of a boy, aged 10 years, who fell from a chair striking his neck against the back of the chair, and sustained a small rupture at the posterolateral aspect of the trachea on the left side at its junction with the cricoids cartilage. The lungs are usually markedly congested, showing haemorrhagic patches and petechiae and exuding dark fluid blood on section. They may show emphysematous bullae on their surface due to over distention and rupture of interalveolar septa. The bronchial tubes usually contain frothy, bloodstained mucus. The right side of the heart is full of dark fluid blood, and the left empty. The right ventricle is found contracted and empty like the left, if the heart had continued to beat after the stoppage of respiration. Sometimes, both the cavities are found full, if the heart stopped during diastole. The abdominal organs are darkly congested. The brain is also congested and shows petechial haemorrhages. 20. The right ventricle is found contracted and empty like the left, if the heart had continued to beat after the stoppage of respiration. Sometimes, both the cavities are found full, if the heart stopped during diastole. The abdominal organs are darkly congested. The brain is also congested and shows petechial haemorrhages. 20. If we go through the medical jurisprudence of different authors, we may arrive at a conclusion that following signs and symptoms may be available in a case of hanging:- (i) The mark is usually situated above the thyroid cartilage between the larynx and the chin, and is directed obliquely upwards following the line of the mandible (lower jaw) and interrupted at the back or may show an irregular impression of knot, reaching the mastoid processes behind the ears towards the point of suspension. (ii) The mark is a groove or furrow, the base pale, hard, leathery and parchment like, and the margins red and congested, it is deepest near the knot. The colour becomes reddish-brown or chocolate brown if seen after some hours of suspension. (iii) Ecchymoses and slight abrasion in the groove are rate, but may be found in some cases, e.g. in judicial hanging. (iv) Ecchymoses alone have no significance as to whether hanging was caused during life or not, but abrasion with haemorrhage are strongly suggestive of it having taken place during life. (v) Neck is found stretched and elongated, and the head is always inclined to the side opposite to the knot and the arms of the loop of ligature. (vi) Face is usually pale and placid, but may be swollen and congested if the body has been long suspended. Petechial haemorrhages are occasionally seen on the face, under the conjunctiva and neck. (vii) Eyes are closed or partly open, and the pupils are usually dilated. (viii) The tongue is drawn in, or caught between the teeth, or protruded and bitten. It is usually swollen and blue, especially at the base. (ix) Bloody froth is sometimes seen at the mouth and nostrils. (x) Saliva is often found running out of an angle of the mouth drawn on the chin and chest. This a sure sign of hanging having taken place during life, as the secretion of saliva being a vital function cannot occur after death. (x) The hands are often clenched, especially in violent hanging. (x) Saliva is often found running out of an angle of the mouth drawn on the chin and chest. This a sure sign of hanging having taken place during life, as the secretion of saliva being a vital function cannot occur after death. (x) The hands are often clenched, especially in violent hanging. (xi) Turgescence of the genital organs generally occurs in both sexes from hypostasis. Seminal fluid is sometimes present at the urethral meatus, but it is not a diagnostic sign of hanging. (xii) Escape of urine and faeces is often found from relaxation of the sphincters; it is also of no diagnostic value, as it is seen in other forms of death. (xiii) Post mortem staining will be seen in the arms and legs of the body if suspension has been continued for some time after death. 21. In the present case, as already stated hereinbefore, doctor found no sign or symptom to suggest that it was a case of suicidal hanging. The doctor found the neck not stretched or elongated and saliva not present and both the eyes were closed, which are assure sign of coming to a conclusion that it was not a case of hanging. We have the evidence in hand that a muffler was found tied round the neck of the deceased, which if used as a ligature, and, if the wind pipe was compressed tying the muffler round the neck, a person surely suffer asphyxia and death may occur without producing any more sign or symptom. 22. A careful reading of the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the present case including that of the evidence of the autopsy surgeon, it is evident that the death of the deceased did not occur because of hanging. It was a case of strangulation as opined by the autopsy surgeon, since neck was found not stretched or elongated and there was no dribbling of saliva running out of the angle of the mouth. Ligature mark of the nylon rope was found round the mouth and occipital region of the head. No ligature mark found round the neck. A muffler (a soft piece of woolen cloth) (Exbt. Ligature mark of the nylon rope was found round the mouth and occipital region of the head. No ligature mark found round the neck. A muffler (a soft piece of woolen cloth) (Exbt. M.O. 3) was found tied round the neck of the deceased, which supposes that windpipe was compressed tying the muffler round the neck and the deceased was rendered powerless within moment and therefore at the time of postmortem examination no mark on the throat was noticed by the autopsy surgeon, though at the time of preparation of inquest report some black coloured marks were found in both side of vocal cord (windpipe). Opinion of an expert is obtained on an issue when neither the Court nor other ordinary people can arrived at a conclusion on the issue in ordinary course. Since here a medical expert, after examination of the dead body, has categorically and meaningfully opined that the cause of death was strangulation, and such opinion of the medical officer has not been destroyed in the cross-examination or otherwise by referring to any authority on the subject, we have no other option, but, to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the autopsy surgeon. 23. In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Manglya Dhavu Kongil reported in (1972) 3 SCC 46 , the Supreme Court discouraged forming a contrary opinion over and above the medical opinion and the Court has held: It is rather surprising that the High Court should have unnecessarily drawn on its own medical knowledge that Asphyxia is also possible in case of poisoning and say that possibility had not been completely eliminated by the medical evidence. If any poison was working in the deceased's system since morning, as suggested, so as to cause death within half an hour thereafter, the witnesses could not have failed to see something abnormal about her. What emerged from the above observation is that when an opinion evidence of an expert has been taken on an issue, it should be relied on unless it is rebutted or destroyed otherwise referring to any authority thereof. There is no scope of having forming a contrary opinion over and above, the opinion of the expert in ordinary circumstance. We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the argument of learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty, on the point, has no merit. 24. The next argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. There is no scope of having forming a contrary opinion over and above, the opinion of the expert in ordinary circumstance. We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the argument of learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty, on the point, has no merit. 24. The next argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty is that P.W. 2 was not examined on the date of lodging F.I.R. though she was present on the spot. She was examined by the I.O. only on 21.01.2004 and so, her evidence cannot be believed. Investigation of the case was taken up on 16.01.2004 and admittedly, Shrimati Urang, P.W. 4 was examined by I.O. on 21.01.2004. In his cross-examination, I.O. clearly stated that on 15.01.2004, when he visited the P.O., he found Shrimati Urang was in senseless condition due to death of her husband and therefore, he could not examine her. This explanation given by I.O. in his cross-examination is enough to explain the delayed examination of the witness. She was the natural witness in the facts and circumstances of the case. Her such delayed examination after 5 days can in no way be termed to have vitiated her evidence before the Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2010) 6 SCC 1 has held that delay in recording the statement of the witnesses do not necessarily discredit their testimonies. The Court may rely on such testimonies, if they are cogent and credible. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Satish reported in AIR 2005 SC 1000 , the Supreme Court in Para 19 of the judgment has held: 19. As regards delayed examination of certain witnesses, this Court in several decisions has held that unless the Investigating Officer is categorically asked as to why there was delay in examination of the witnesses the defence cannot gain any advantage therefrom. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that if there is any delay in examination of a particular witness the prosecution version becomes suspect. It would depend upon several factors. If the explanation offered for the delayed examination is plausible and acceptable and the court accepts the same as plausible, there is no reason to interfere with the conclusion. Bodhraj alias Bodha and Ors. It would depend upon several factors. If the explanation offered for the delayed examination is plausible and acceptable and the court accepts the same as plausible, there is no reason to interfere with the conclusion. Bodhraj alias Bodha and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, ( 2002 (8) SCC 45 ) and Banti alias Guddu v. State of M.P. (2004) (1) SCC 414). In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find no force in the argument of learned counsel on this count. 25. The next argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty is that according to P.Ws. 1 and 2, the deceased was forcefully taken away by the accused persons whereas all other witnesses, who gathered in the spot of hanging stated that they were reported by Rabi Lal that the accused persons taken away the deceased and they did not say anything that he was forcefully taken away. Further, except that of taking away, there is no other evidence to draw an irresistible conclusion that the accused persons might have killed the deceased and thereafter, suspended the dead body. Learned P.P., on the contrary, has submitted that the deceased was in his house preparing food with his wife as stated by P.W. 2. The accused persons went there with a previous meeting of mind and a prearranged plan and taken away the deceased forcefully from the house and thereafter, killed him by strangulation and suspended the dead body with a view to screen them from the charge of murder. The suspension of body, itself, shows that it was made after committing the murder. The deceased was a young man of 24 years. He was not found alive by anybody after he was taken away from his house. So, the theory of last seen together shall apply very strongly against the accused persons and learned Sessions Judge rightly appreciated the evidence in its appropriate direction, which does not deserve any interference. 26. We have meticulously gone through the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge. We are convinced that learned Sessions Judge elaborately discussed the evidence on record and arrived at a reasonable conclusion on all the points what is substantially argued before this Court. The deceased was taken away from his house by the accused persons, has been established with overwhelming evidence i.e. the evidence of P.Ws. We are convinced that learned Sessions Judge elaborately discussed the evidence on record and arrived at a reasonable conclusion on all the points what is substantially argued before this Court. The deceased was taken away from his house by the accused persons, has been established with overwhelming evidence i.e. the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who are eye witnesses and the evidence of the neighbours, who gathered to the spot on the following morning when the dead body was found hanging, to whom the incident was reported. It is immaterial whether he was forcefully taken or not. Even if, we presume that he was not forcefully taken, but, was simply taken by the accused persons, still it is the case stands established that the deceased was taken away from his house by the accused persons and thereafter, he was found dead in the following morning and there was no evidence that anybody else seen him alive in the mean time. The time spent was so short between the taking away and the recovery of the dead body, which leads us to only hypothesis of guilt of the accused persons and inconsistent with their plea of innocence. 27. This Court in the case of Chauna Urang Vs. The State of Assam reported in 1981 CRI. L.J. 1661 has underlined the rules governing admissibility and use of circumstantial evidence thus- i) Facts for a legal inference must be clearly proved and indubitably connected with the "factum probandum". ii) Burden is on the party asserting existence of fact. iii) Best evidence to be adduced. iv) Inculpatory facts must be incompatible with innocence and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis. v) Acquittal in case of reasonable doubt. 28. The Supreme Court in the case of Anant Chintaman Lagu Vs. The State of Bombay reported in AIR 1960 SC 500 has held that a criminal trial is not an enquiry into the conduct of an accused for any purpose other than to determine whether he is guilty of the offence charged. In this connection, that piece of conduct can be held to be incriminatory which has no reasonable explanation except on the hypothesis that he is guilty. Conduct which destroys the presumption of innocence can alone be considered as material. In this connection, that piece of conduct can be held to be incriminatory which has no reasonable explanation except on the hypothesis that he is guilty. Conduct which destroys the presumption of innocence can alone be considered as material. In Para 68 of the Judgment, the Supreme Court has observed-circumstantial evidence in this context means a combination of facts creating a net-work through which there is no escape for the accused, because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference but of his guilt. 29. In the case of Balwinder Singh @ Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1987) 1 SCC 7, the Apex Court has held- In cases in which the evidence is purely of a circumstantial nature, the facts and circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully established beyond any reasonable doubt, and the facts and circumstances should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but they must be such in their effect as to be entirely incompatible with the innocence of the accused and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis, consistent with his innocence. In the light of these well-settled principles, the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court, during the course of their carefully written judgment, have ably marshalled the evidence and come to the conclusion that the circumstances alleged have been fully proved, and they are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant. 30. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it was clear that the circumstances lead to no other inference than that of guilt of the appellants and they were wholly inconsistent with their innocence. 31. In the case of Shyamal Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 2012 SC 3539 in Para 42 of the judgment, the Apex Court observed that - Evidence establishing the 'last seen together' theory and the fact that after altercation and strangulation of the deceased which was witnessed by PW 8, PW 17 and PW 19, the body of the deceased was recovered in pieces in presence of the witnesses, have been fully established. To a very limited extent, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has proved the complete chain of events. To a very limited extent, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has proved the complete chain of events. The gap between the time when the accused persons were last seen with the deceased and the discovery of his mutilated body is quite small and the possible inference would be that the accused are responsible for commission of the murder of the deceased. Once the last seen theory comes into play, the onus was on the accused to explain as to what happened to the deceased after they were together seen alive. The accused persons have failed to render any reasonable/plausible explanation in this regard. 32. In the case of Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 4 SCC 37 , a minor girl was taken away by the accused with the allurement of giving her biscuit and she was subsequently found dead and her dead body was recovered. She was last seen living in the companion of the accused. The Court held that while dealing with the case of circumstantial evidence, best evidence must be adduced which nature of case admits and guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt since an accused is innocent until proved guilty and is entitled to just and fair trial. Fact that the accused had taken deceased from her home on the pretext of purchasing biscuit was again seen with the child at the bus stand at about 6 p.m., and thereafter, going away with her, proved vide testimonies of P.Ws. Nude body of the victim found next day at about 8 a.m. in fields, such incriminating facts established that accused was last seen together with the deceased and it was for him to explain the circumstances leading to her death. The accused except raising a plea of false implication had no evidence in his support. Guilt of the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence sustained. 33. In the case of Birbal Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2000) 10 SCC 212 , the Supreme Court in the given fact held that the deceased along with the accused went to the jungle and thereafter, he returned alone and he reported the daughter of the deceased that the deceased will return later on, but, the deceased did not return. State of M.P. reported in (2000) 10 SCC 212 , the Supreme Court in the given fact held that the deceased along with the accused went to the jungle and thereafter, he returned alone and he reported the daughter of the deceased that the deceased will return later on, but, the deceased did not return. When the matter was reported to police and the police arrested the accused and thereafter, dead body was recovered at the instance of the accused. Under such circumstances, relying on the theory of last seen together, the Supreme Court has held that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction and sentence of the accused, was appropriated. 34. In the case of Ramachami Vs. State reported in (2008) 15 SCC 122 , His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat in Para 5 and 6 of the judgment held thus: 5. The circumstances, which were pressed into service by the prosecution to connect the accused with the offences, are as follows: (i) the deceased Kuttappan and the accused Ramachami used to sleep in the hotel itself in the night and on 3.2.1998 in the night they two were alone in the hotel (the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3). (ii) The deceased used to keep his money in the pocket of his briefs and this fact was known to the other inmates of the hotel, including the accused (the version of PW 1 and PW 2). (iii) On 4.2.1998 early in the morning by 6 O'clock when PW 1 and PW 2 reached the hotel as usual for work, they saw Kuttappan lying down sustaining injuries on the floor of the hotel near the cash counter (the deposition of PW 1 and PW 2). (iv) The accused who was along with the deceased in the hotel on the prevision night was not seen anywhere near there and he had been absconding since then till his arrest (evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3). (v) the police were able to recover MOI (the wooden stick allegedly used for beating the deceased Kurt appan) from a particular place in the hotel premises on the basis of the statement of the accused while he was in custody (the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 and PW 12). 6. (v) the police were able to recover MOI (the wooden stick allegedly used for beating the deceased Kurt appan) from a particular place in the hotel premises on the basis of the statement of the accused while he was in custody (the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 and PW 12). 6. The circumstances clearly establish that the accused was employed in the hotel and used to sleep in the hotel and on the night of occurrence, both the deceased and the accused were alone in the hotel. The evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 in this regard is clear, cogent and credible. Additionally, the accused and the deceased were last seen together on the previous night. The appellant was arrested long after the incident, i.e., on 29.11.1998 and was absconding during the aforesaid period. The circumstances, according to us, are sufficient to hold the accused guilty. 35. In the case at hand, on going through the evidence on record, we find following aggravating circumstances:- I) Accused-appellants along with absconder accused Subin came to the house of the deceased on 14.01.2004 at about 10/10.30 p.m. and forcefully taken away deceased from his house. II) After about half/one hour, inmates of the house of the deceased heard alarm raised by the deceased somewhere in the Tea Garden. III) The inmates of the house, hearing the alarm went out on a search of the deceased during the night and conducted search up to 3 a.m. of the night, but, could not trace out the deceased. On the following early morning i.e. on 15.01.2004 P.Ws. 1 and 2 along with the parents of the deceased again went out on a search and found the dead body of Shyamlal (deceased) hanging from a branch of tree in the back side of Natingcherra Tea Estate office. IV) They raised alarm and people from neighbourhood gathered there. V) The dead body was found suspended from the branch of a tree with a nylon rope tied round the mouth and head of the deceased. VI) The head was bent towards front. VII) A muffler was found tied round the neck of the deceased in hanging position. The deceased was already dead. V) The dead body was found suspended from the branch of a tree with a nylon rope tied round the mouth and head of the deceased. VI) The head was bent towards front. VII) A muffler was found tied round the neck of the deceased in hanging position. The deceased was already dead. VIII) Some labourers of the tea garden informed P.W. 11, Upapradhan of the village to inform the police and accordingly, he over telephone informed the police that a dead body was found hanging near the office of Natingcherra Tea Estate and on that information, P.W. 12 made a G.D. Entry (Exbt. 4) following which P.Ws. 14 and 15 with police staff went to the spot. IX) Dead body was brought down by police and inquest report was prepared (Exbt. 1). X) On the spot, P.W. 1 lodged an F.I.R. written by P.W. 11 stating that on the previous night at about 10/10.30 p.m., the accused persons forcefully taken away the deceased from the house. XI) The deceased was found last living in the companion of the accused persons and thereafter, his dead body was found on the following morning. XII) P.W. 9 stated that one of his cow was stolen by the accused persons and a case was instituted in which the deceased was a witness. XIII) The accused persons were animus to deceased. XIV) All the witnesses, who gathered on the spot, where the dead body was found hanging, were informed by P.W. 1 that the deceased was taken away by the accused persons with the absconder accused. XV) The accused Subin absconded after the occurrence. XVI) Accused Ranjit also absconded, but he was arrested on 21.01.2004. XVII) There is no other circumstance that the deceased was found alive with anybody else after he was taken away by the accused persons. The principal fact or factum probandum may be proved by direct evidence or indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from factum probandum, i.e. the evidentiary facts. Circumstantial evidence means communication of facts creating a network from which, there is no escape for the accused because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference expert guilt of the accused. 36. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the accused persons taken away the deceased from his house during night time. Circumstantial evidence means communication of facts creating a network from which, there is no escape for the accused because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference expert guilt of the accused. 36. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the accused persons taken away the deceased from his house during night time. On the following morning, his dead body was found in suspended condition from a branch of tree. The theory of last seen together can fairly be applied. The accused persons failed to give any reasonable explanation as to where the deceased had gone after they took him with them. They have simply pleaded their innocence and nothing else. The incriminating network of circumstances, therefore, has made a den of guilt of the accused persons as alleged and nothing else. Minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses does not require to be noted with any significance. We find nothing to arrive at a contrary finding then that the learned Sessions Judge has arrived at in his judgment. 37. In view of the discussions made above, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge is upheld. 38. The appeal accordingly, stands dismissed. Send back the L.C.R. along with the copy of the judgment.