Hon'ble AHLUWALIA, J.—Shyam Lal, on 28.2.2000, was married with Anjali @ Pinky daughter of the complainant Mohanlal (P.W.6). On 28.4.2005 at about 7:30-8:00 PM information was received by Mohanlal (P.W.6) that his daughter Anjali @ Pinky has died in her matrimonial home. Mohanlal appeared at Police Station Bandikui on 29.4.2005 at 8:30 AM and presented the written complaint (Ex.P.13) on the basis whereof formal FIR (Ex.P.14) bearing No.272/05 was registered at P.S. Bandikui, District Dausa for offence under Sections 498A, 304B IPC. Investigating agency had sent present appellant Shyam Lal and his mother Smt. Manohari Devi for trial. 2. The court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui vide impugned judgment dated 1.5.2009 recorded acquittal of Smt. Manohari Devi and holding that all ingredients of offence under Section 304B IPC are made out, convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC primarily on the ground that medical evidence prove death of Anjali @ Pinky to be murder. We shall reproduce following finding returned by the trial court in the impugned judgment:- ^^;gkW ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd vfHk;qDr ';ke yky ds f[kykQ /kkjk 304 ch] vkbZ-ih-lh- ds vijk/k dh i;kZIr lk{; i=koyh ij ekStwn gS ijarq vizk—frd e`R;q ds LFkku ij e`rdk dks mlds ifr ds }kjk xyk nck dj gR;k dkfjr dh tkuk leLr Ja[kykc) ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; ls lansg ls ijs lkfcr fd;k x;k gSA ,sls esa mls /kkjk 304 ch vkbZ-ih-lh- ds LFkku ij oSdfYid vkjksi vUrxZr /kkjk 302 vkbZ-ih-lh- ds vijk/k esa nks"kh ekuk tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA** 3. A question has arisen before us where all family members of husband are named as accused can it be presumed that husband alone is responsible for murder and if ingredients of offence under Section 304B IPC are made out with aid of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act and presumption is available to prosecution qua offence of dowry death still by invoking Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, presumption is to be drawn against husband for murder? Before we answer the above question, it will be necessary for us to reproduce English translation of the written report (Ex.P.13) presented by Mohanlal (P.W.6) before Bhoma Ram (P.W.16) who was then posted as SHO, Police Station Bandikui, as under:- “To, The SHO Sahab, Police Station Bandikui. Sub.: Lodging of the report. Before we answer the above question, it will be necessary for us to reproduce English translation of the written report (Ex.P.13) presented by Mohanlal (P.W.6) before Bhoma Ram (P.W.16) who was then posted as SHO, Police Station Bandikui, as under:- “To, The SHO Sahab, Police Station Bandikui. Sub.: Lodging of the report. Sir, It is submitted that on 28.2.2000 my daughter, Anjali @ Pinky, was married with Shyam Lal S/o. Kishanlal Bairwa, r/o. Tikawali, Village Bhandeda according to Hindu customs and rites at Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur. After marriage, my daughter was harassed and maltreated by his father-in-law Kishanlal, mother-in-law Manohari Devi, sister-in-law Kamlesh, younger brother-in-law Motilal, elder brother-in-law Heeralal, husband Shyam Lal and another younger brother-in-law Rajkumar. They also used to inflict physical cruelty upon her. Every day they used to beat my daughter and use to say that go and bring dowry from your father otherwise you will not be permitted to reside and you will be killed. On 27.4.2005 at about 11:00 AM my daughter informed me on telephone “Papa my Devar Motilal, Rajkumar, mother-in-law and sister-in-law Kamlesh are beating me and are saying they will finish me and murder me. On 28.4.2005 at about 7.30-8.00 PM I received a telephone from Village Tikawali and in-laws of my daughter informed that condition of your daughter is precarious and we should immediately reach after arranging conveyance. We reached Tikawali and found that our daughter was lying dead in the Chowk. Everybody had killed my daughter by strangulating her with a Sari. Therefore, it is requested that report be registered and legal action be taken against the accused and they be punished. Sd/- Date:29.4.2005.” 5. What is required to be noted by us that in the written report, complainant had stated that he had received telephonic information from his daughter that beating was given to her by Devar Motilal, Rajkumar, mother-in-law and sister-in-law Kamlesh and they had threatened that they will finish Anjali daughter of the complainant. Thus, primarily allegation of beating in the FIR has been specifically leveled against Devar Motilal, Rajkumar, mother-in-law and sister-in-law Kamlesh. We shall examine later whether the information relayed by the deceased to her father can be treated as dying declaration or not. 6. Thus, primarily allegation of beating in the FIR has been specifically leveled against Devar Motilal, Rajkumar, mother-in-law and sister-in-law Kamlesh. We shall examine later whether the information relayed by the deceased to her father can be treated as dying declaration or not. 6. However, we may notice that the appellant was charged by the trial court for offence under Section 498A IPC and for offence under Section 304B IPC and in the alternative for offence under Section 302 IPC. Prosecution examined Dr. Mahesh Vashistha (P.W.1). This witness stated that on 29.4.2005 he was posted as Medical Officer at Community Health Center, Bandikui. He being member of the medical board had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Anjali @ Pinky, aged 25 years. As per police information, cause of death was throttling. As per post-mortem report (Ex.P.1), following injuries were found on the person of Anjali @ Pinky:- 1. Abrasion of 1 cm. x 1/2 cm with blood over antero lateral aspect of M/B of neck right side. 2. Abrasion of circle of 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm black over antero lateral aspect of right side of neck M/B approx. 2.5 cm. in front of injury No.2 3. Abrasion of 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm red over antero lateral aspect of left side of M/B of neck. 4. Abrasion of 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm red over antero lateral aspect of left side neck M/B approx. 4 cm behind injury No.3. 5. Abrasion of 1 cm x 1/2 cm antero lateral aspect of neck left side approx. 2 cm above injury No.4. 6. Free movements of cervical, neck region – on dissection there is fracture, dislocation of C2/3 vertebrae. 7. In examination-in-chief, Dr. Mahesh Vashistha (P.W.1) stated that injury No.6 was cause of death and in the cross-examination, the doctor stated that by using rope, Dupatta, Dhoti or Sari one can hang himself and it cannot be ruled out that injury No.6 can be suffered in this process. Exact words of the doctor are reproduced below:- ^^jLlh ls] pqujh ls ;k /kksrh lkM+h ls Qank Mkydj yVdus ls pksV la-6 vkus dh laHkkouk ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA** 8. Udaibhan (P.W.2) stated that Shyamlal was not arrested in his presence. But police had obtained his signature on arrest memo (Ex.P.4). 9. Ram Kishore (P.W.3) had attested the inquest proceedings and proved Panchanama (Ex.P.5). 10. Udaibhan (P.W.2) stated that Shyamlal was not arrested in his presence. But police had obtained his signature on arrest memo (Ex.P.4). 9. Ram Kishore (P.W.3) had attested the inquest proceedings and proved Panchanama (Ex.P.5). 10. Dilip Kumar (P.W.4) was called at the spot to take photographs. This witness took photographs Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.10. 11. Harsahai (P.W.5) proved arrest memo (Ex.P.11) of acquitted accused Manohari Devi and recovery memo (Ex.P.12) of dowry articles. 12. Mohanlal (P.W.6) stated that his daughter was married with Shyam Lal S/o Kishanlal. After one month of marriage, in-laws of her daughter, namely Kishanlal father-in-law, Manohari Devi mother-in-law, sister-in-law Kamlesh, elder brother-in-law Heeralal and younger brother-in-laws Motilal and Rajkumar and husband Shyam Lal started harassing her. On 1.1.2001 when his daughter was carrying pregnancy of four months, Shyam Lal left her at the house of the complainant Mohanlal (P.W.6). He had borne the entire expenses of delivery. After delivery, for two months his daughter stayed at his house. Whenever daughter used to talk on telephone, she used to inform that she was given beating. This witness further stated that on 27.4.2005 he had a telephonic conversation with her daughter. She informed that all accused were giving beating to her. On 28.4.2005 at about 8:00 PM he was informed on telephone that condition of his daughter is serious. Therefore, they should immediately come. At night on the same day at 10.30 PM they reached at Village Tikawali. The dead body of his daughter was lying in the varandah. On 29.4.2005 at about 12:00 noon post-mortem was conducted. The witness further stated that there were mark of injury on the neck. 13. Kamla (P.W.9) mother of deceased also deposed regarding harass-ment and maltreatment extended to the deceased Anjali and the fact that she was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws. This witness further stated in the court that after marriage her husband Mohanlal had arranged employment for son-in-law Shyam Lal in the city at Jaipur. But after 15-20 days, Shyam Lal stated that he will return to his village. His daughter stated that she will not go to the village as she will be given beating there. In cross-examination this witness admitted that Shyam Lal was teaching in a school. She further admitted that in Tikawali, there was no hospital where delivery could take place. 14. Pawan Rajpoot (P.W.7) stated that she was posted as a lady constable. His daughter stated that she will not go to the village as she will be given beating there. In cross-examination this witness admitted that Shyam Lal was teaching in a school. She further admitted that in Tikawali, there was no hospital where delivery could take place. 14. Pawan Rajpoot (P.W.7) stated that she was posted as a lady constable. She had witnessed arrest of Manohari Devi vide memo (Ex.P.11). 15. Ramkaran (P.W.8) proved Exhibit-P.4 whereby Shyam Lal accused was arrested. 16. Khemchand (P.W.10) has not supported the prosecution case regarding list dowry articles prepared and was declared hostile. 17. Shanti, sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of deceased Anjali appeared as P.W.11. She stated that Anjali was subjected to harassment by accused and her in-laws. She further stated that Shyam Lal was unemployed. Therefore, he was asking his wife to bring cash from her parents. 18. Dinesh (P.W.12) stated that Anjali was daughter of his maternal uncle. Anjali was murdered due to strangulation. However, this witness stated that his maternal uncle used to tell that accused was harassing Anjali. 19. Ram Prasad (PW13) is elder brother of Mohanlal. Sangeeta (PW14) is sister of Anjali. Both these witnesses have reiterated the allegation of harass-ment and maltreatment extended to Anjali because of demand of dowry. 20. Lalchand Kayal (P.W.15) and Bhoma Ram (P.W.16) had participated in investigation and proved various facets of investigation. 21. We have heard counsel for the parties and have taken note of their submissions. 22. We have seen the post-mortem report and the evidence of Dr. Mahesh Vashistha (P.W.1) who had conducted autopsy on the dead body. There is only one pronounced feature, i.e. injury No.6. Injury No.6 is Free movements of cervical in neck region. On dissection there was fracture and disclocation of C2/3 vertebrae. In the post-mortem report, no ligature mark has been noticed. Mouth was semi open. Teeth was visible. Fluid and saliva dribbling from left side mouth and left side nostril were noticed. So far as position of larynx and tracheae is concerned, the doctor has noted that tracheal rings were displaced. We are of the opinion that the doctor conducting post-mortem had not taken necessary care and caution to notice features from which it could be determined whether it is a case of hanging or strangulation. It is now well established that a medical expert can determine whether cause of death is hanging or strangulation. 23. We are of the opinion that the doctor conducting post-mortem had not taken necessary care and caution to notice features from which it could be determined whether it is a case of hanging or strangulation. It is now well established that a medical expert can determine whether cause of death is hanging or strangulation. 23. One of us Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. as he was then Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Amar Iqbal Singh vs. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.684-SB of 1996, decided on 3rd March, 2009) reported as 2009 (5) RCR 364 had noted the features of strangulation and hanging in various treatise of medical jurisprudence. It will be apposite here to reproduce following portion of the judgment:- Asphyxial deaths have been considered by HWV Cox in his book 'Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology' Seventh Edition, published by LexisNexis Butterworths (hereinafter referred to as 'Cox'). In Section 3, Chapter 2, Cox has given various kinds of Asphyxial deaths caused by suffocation, hanging and strangulation. Strangulation, by Cox has been partly divided into manual strangulation called 'throttling' and strangulation by ligature (sometimes called 'garroting'). Taking into consideration pathological findings, certain differences have been noted. Since in the present case, a ligature mark is present, this Court need not consider manual strangulation. In his lucid study, the author has observed that spiral rope patterns, woven cords, plaited electric wires, links of chains and other typical patterns may be imprinted upon the skin surface. The author has further observed that the width of skin groove from a ligature may not be the same as the object which caused it, for example, where a folded cloth has been used, there may be great differences between the appearance of the neck mark and the size of the ligature. If a piece of fabric is pulled tight, bands of tightly stretched material will appear and where these are applied forcibly to the skin, only the stretched bands may cause grooving of the skin. Thus, nature of the ligature mark and the object, i.e. cloth, wire and cord used can be one of the indicators to determine ligature strangulation. If a piece of fabric is pulled tight, bands of tightly stretched material will appear and where these are applied forcibly to the skin, only the stretched bands may cause grooving of the skin. Thus, nature of the ligature mark and the object, i.e. cloth, wire and cord used can be one of the indicators to determine ligature strangulation. It has further been observed by Cox on page No.350 as under: "After death, the ligature mark on the skin may assume a dry, leathery, parchment-like appearance which is due to damage to the epidermis, though it is said that it is not due to friction. There may also be exudation of tissue fluid which later dries, forming a stiff film. Frequently, there are petechial hemorrhages on either side of the, ligature mark and this is absolute confirmation that the mark was made during life. Reddening and congestion is also common immediately adjacent to the ligature mark, though the floor of the ligature mark itself may be pale due to squeezing out of the blood by the pressure. As mentioned earlier, it is very common for the skin to be congested above the ligature mark and normal or pale below, this again being absolute proof that the ligature was applied during life. The absence of such congestion, however does not indicate that the ligature was applied after death, as in the frequent rapid types of death following compression of the neck, there may be insufficient time for any changes to occur in the skin. Apart from the mark due to the ligature and any possible 'asphyxial' changes above, such as congestion, oedema, cyanosis, petechiae and nose bleeding, certain other marks may be discovered on the skin in cases of ligature strangulation. The most frequent ones are those inflicted by the victim in an attempt to tear away the ligature and are usually seen as scratches on the skin of the neck near the position of the ligature." Cox further stated that in strangulation by ligature, level of ligature is often such that it is well below hyoid bone and fractures are thus, less frequent than in the manual strangulation, where the grip is usually higher. The author further stated that hanging has certain features in common with strangulation by ligature, but there are marked differences in the mechanism of death. The author further stated that hanging has certain features in common with strangulation by ligature, but there are marked differences in the mechanism of death. One of the marked difference is that the position of ligature mark in hanging is usually different from that in strangulation, the hanging mark being higher on the neck than when an assailant places a ligature around the victim. The hanging mark normally passes above the larynx, at the level of the base of the tongue, passing then beneath the angles of jaw, rising to a high point, where the noose is joined to the fixed part of the rope or wire. It was further held that mechanism of death is very frequently sudden due to cardiac arrest from pressure upon the large vessels in the neck. The author has culled differences between hanging and strangulation by drawing the following table on page 361 : Difference between Hanging and Strangulation Trait Hanging Ligature Strangulation 1 Face Pale and petechiae are not common It is livid, congested and full of petechiae 2 Ligature mark Oblique usually seen high up in the neck above the thyroid cartilage and incomplete Transverse, complete-ly encircles the neck and usually below the thyroid cartilage 3 Base Pale, hard and parchment like Soft and reddish 4 Subcutaneous Tissue It is white, hard and glistening below the mark Ecchymoses present below the mark 5 Neck Stretched and elongated Not so 6 Hyoid Bone Fracture is common Fracture is rare 7 Thyroid Cartilage Fracture is rare Fracture is common 8 Tongue Swelling and protrusion Are well marked 9 Saliva Usually runs out of mouth Absent 10 Bleeding From the nose From the nose, mouth and ears are common 11 Involuntary Discharge Of the faeces and urine are not common Are commonly seen 12 Seminal Fluid Usually seen at the glans penis Rarely seen Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Twenty-third Edition contained Chapter 18 of Sec. 1: Medical Jurisprudence regarding Asphyxia. Hanging has been defined by Modi as the ligature compre-ssion of the neck by the weight of one's own body. Cause of death is one of the indicators to determine whether deceased died due to hanging or strangulation. Hanging has been defined by Modi as the ligature compre-ssion of the neck by the weight of one's own body. Cause of death is one of the indicators to determine whether deceased died due to hanging or strangulation. Modi has observed as under on page No.576: "Causes of Death Death is usually due to asphyxia (anoxic hypoxia), but it may be due to other causes, namely, cerebral ischaemia or venous congestion, asphyxia and venous congestion combined, or shock due to reflex cardiac arrest (it accounts for at least half the deaths from manual strangulation). Very rarely, the cervical vertebrae may be fractured. Probably, one or more causes may operate during strangulation. A pale face would indicate a rapid death from reflex cardiac arrest, while face with petechiae would suggest a delayed death." Another indicator is appearance due to Asphyxia. It has been noticed by Modi as under on page No. 579 : "(b) Appearances due to Asphyxia : The face 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 discharge of urine, faeces and seminal fluid." After noticing all these parameters, Modi has drawn following table on page No. 583-4 : "Differences between Hanging and Strangulation The differences between hanging and strangulation are given below in tabulated form : Hanging Strangulation 1. Mostly suicidal 1. Mostly homicidal 2. Face-Usually pale and petechiae rere 2. Face-Congested, livid and marked with petechiae 3. Saliva-Dribbling out of the mouth down on the chin and chest 3. Saliva-No such dribbling 4. Neck-Stretched and elongated in fresh bodies 4. Neck-Not so 5. External signs of asphyxia, usually not well marked 5. External signs of asphyxia, very well marked (minimal if death due to vasovagal and carotid sinus effect). 6. Face-Congested, livid and marked with petechiae 3. Saliva-Dribbling out of the mouth down on the chin and chest 3. Saliva-No such dribbling 4. Neck-Stretched and elongated in fresh bodies 4. Neck-Not so 5. External signs of asphyxia, usually not well marked 5. External signs of asphyxia, very well marked (minimal if death due to vasovagal and carotid sinus effect). 6. Bleeding from the nose, mouth and ears very rare 6. Bleeding from the nose, mouth and ears may be found. 7. Ligature mark-Oblique, non-continuous placed high up in the neck between the chin and the larynx, the base of the groove or furrow being hard, yellow and parchment-like. 7. Ligature mark - Horizontal or transverse continuous, round the neck, low down in the neck below the thyroid, the base of the groove or furrow being soft and reddish. 8. Abrasions and ecchymoses round about the edges of the ligature mark, rare. 8. Abrasions and ecchymoses round about the edges of the ligature mark, common. 9. Subcutaneous tissues under the mark - White, hard and glistening. 9. Subcutaneous tissues under the mark - Ecchymosed 10. Injury to the muscles of the neck - Rare. 10. Injury to the muscles of the neck - Common. 11. Carotid arteries, internal coats ruptured in violent cases of a long drop. 11. Carotid arteries 12. Fracture of the larynx and trachea - Very rare and that too in judicial hanging. 12. Fracture of the larynx and trachea - Often found also hyoid bone. 13. Fracture-dislocation of the cervical vertebrae - Common in judicial hanging. 13. Fracture-dislocation of the cervical vertebrae - Rare. 14. Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body - Usually not present. 14. Scratches, abrasions fingernail marks and bruises on the face neck and other parts of the body-Usually present. 15. No evidence of sexual assault. 15. Sometimes Evidence of sexual assault. 16. Emphysematous bullae on the surface of the lungs - Not present. 16. Emphysematous bullae on the surface of the lungs - May be present." Parikh's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Sixth Edition has devoted Section 3(12) to 3(13) to deaths from Asphyxia. Parikh has observed that traditionally, accepted signs of Asphyxia are due to pathological changes resulting from anoxia. The effect of anoxia on tissues is mainly two fold, viz, non-specific and specific. Parikh has observed that traditionally, accepted signs of Asphyxia are due to pathological changes resulting from anoxia. The effect of anoxia on tissues is mainly two fold, viz, non-specific and specific. As a result of non-specific effects, body tissues undergo parenchymatous degeneration. As a result of specific effects, systematic changes seen are : (i) cyanosis; (ii) increased capillary permeability; and (iii) petechial haemorrhage. Parikh has defined cyanosis, increased capillary permeability and petechial haemorrhage, which are indicators to determine whether death is due to anoxia or venous congestion. Parikh also noticed that in case of hanging, ligature constricts the neuron-vascular bundles in the neck and/or the upper airways. Parikh held that determining factors to find whether one has died due to hanging or 'strangulation are external appearances, injuries of neck and internal appearances. Following signs have been noticed by Parikh regarding strangulation : (i) Death instantaneous. No asphyxial signs; (ii) Slight asphyxial signs : cyanosed face with occasional petechiae, suffused eyes, dilated pupils; (iii) Moderate asphyxial signs : cyanosed face, bulging eyes, ecchymosed conjunctivae, and few petechiae; (iv) Well marked asphyxial signs : deeply cyanosed face, blood shot eyes, bruised bitten tongue, and many petechiae in eyelids, conjunctivae, and face. Parikh concluded that ligature mark is one of the indicators and in itself is not sufficient to decipher whether death has taken place due to hanging or strangulation. Parikh held that extensive injuries to the neck are far more common, as the murderer generally implies more force than is necessary to cause death. To differentiate between hanging and strangulation, Parikh has drawn the following table on page No. 3.53 : Hanging Ligature Strangulation 1. Suicidal usually Homicidal Usually 2. No signs of struggle Signs of struggle 3. Ligature found in position, above thyroid cartilage, mark incomplete, directed obliquely upward with a gap indicating position of the knot with no damage to the skin in the gap Ligature may not be with the body but when found, usually completely encircles the neck horizontally below thyroid cartilage. There may be more than one turn of ligature and there is always some damage to skin underneath 4. Abrasions and bruises around ligature mark rare Abrasions and bruises around ligature mark common 5. Dissection of ligature mark reveals a dry and glistening white band of subcutaneous tissue Dissection of ligature mark reveals ecchymosed subcutaneous tissue 6. Neck usually stretched Neck not stretched 7. Abrasions and bruises around ligature mark rare Abrasions and bruises around ligature mark common 5. Dissection of ligature mark reveals a dry and glistening white band of subcutaneous tissue Dissection of ligature mark reveals ecchymosed subcutaneous tissue 6. Neck usually stretched Neck not stretched 7. Fracture of hyoid rare Fracture of hyoid not rare in throttling cases (in the aged) 8. Fracture of laryngeal cartilages and tracheal rings rare Fracture of laryngeal cartilages and tracheal ring common 9. Injury to carotid arteries in cases with a long drop Injury to carotid arteries common 10. Injury to muscles of neck rare Injury to muscles of neck common 11. Fracture dislocation of cervical vertebrae common in judicial hanging Fracture dislocation of cervical vertebrae rare 12. Saliva running out of the angle of the mouth vertically down along the neck and front of chest and abdomen Saliva may not have escaped from mouth but if so, usually blood tinged and may not be vertically down 13. External signs of asphyxia may not be well marked when death is due to any cause ether than asphyxia External signs of asphyxia usually well marked because of considerable violence that is commonly employed 14. Face usually pale Face congested and with pronounced petechiae 15. Bleeding from nose and mouth very rare Bleeding from nose and mouth common Classical treatise on medical jurisprudence is found in of Medical Jurisprudence, Eleventh Revised Edition, published by J & A Churchill Ltd. Taylor also laid much emphasis on post mortem appearances to determine whether one has died in case of asphyxia due to strangulation or hanging. Broad indicators, according to Taylor, are the general external appearances, the injuries found on dissection of the neck and general internal appearances. Taylor has observed as under on page Nos. 494-5 : "Proof of the Cause of Death The general features of asphyxial death found in strangled bodies have been noted above, viz., intense venous congestion in general, capillary stasis, hemorrhages into the substance of the lung and into mucous membranes, punctate petechiae in the skin and conjunctivae, prominence of the eyes, protrusion of the tongue, or its pressure against the teeth, and bloody froth and mucus in the trachea. Circulation ceases with life, so it is utterly impossible that a ligature placed round the neck after death could produce these appearances : the presence of these signs strongly suggests that death was due to asphyxia. Nevertheless they are not in themselves pathognomonic, for, as Gordon and Turner have insisted, they occur in other suboxic deaths. Their local distribution in the head and neck is, however, strongly presumptive of strangling. Evidence of violent compression or constriction of the neck during life is obtained from the presence of ecchymoses about the marks on the neck, haemorrhages above the level of the constriction, and swelling and lividity of the face. These are phenomena which cannot be simulated in a dead body by the application of any degree of violence. When the constriction is produced within a few minutes after death, a depression results, but it is. highly unlikely that there will be any lividity or swelling of the tissues above. The experiments of Casper showed the impossibility of producing on a dead body anything at all resembling an ante-mortem strangulation mark. In the absence of ecchymoses in the neck, it will be difficult to form an opinion, unless from circumstantial evidence. It must be remembered, however, that there may not always be any well defined marks, for a person may be strangled by the application of pressure to the neck through some soft medium. In the absence of all marks of violence round the neck, we should be cautious in giving an opinion which may affect the life of an accused party, for it is difficult for homicidal strangulation to be accomplished without the production of some appearances of violence on the skin. It is doubtful whether strangulation ever takes place without some marks being found on the neck indicative of the means used, but there is a remote possibility that death could be caused in this manner, without leaving any appreciable trace of violence. Suicides and murderers generally employ much more violence than is necessary for the purpose of taking life. If a soft and elastic band were applied to the neck with gradually increased force, it might be possible that death from strangulation would result with-out there being any external sign indicating the cause of death." 24. Suicides and murderers generally employ much more violence than is necessary for the purpose of taking life. If a soft and elastic band were applied to the neck with gradually increased force, it might be possible that death from strangulation would result with-out there being any external sign indicating the cause of death." 24. We are of the opinion that by not noticing the features which are pronounced in case of strangulation and hanging, Doctor conducting autopsy has deprived the court of vital evidence. Even if we undertake onerous duty to determine whether in the present case Anjali @ Pinky died due to strangulation or hanging, we find minute details are lacking in post-mortem report. Fracture of hyoid bone as per Cox is rare in strangulation whereas it is pronounced in hanging. In the present case, there was dislocation of cervical vertebrae. As per Modi, this is common feature in judicial hanging. Parikh also holds the same view. Least we can say from opinion of the Doctor and the post-mortem report that it cannot be said with certainty that death of deceased Anjali @ Pinky was due to strangulation, therefore, we cannot rule out hanging. Hence, cause of death is doubtful. That being so, we are of the opinion that deceased died within seven years in matrimonial home unnatural death and there was a demand of dowry. Therefore, as held by the trial court, the appellant is guilty of offence under Section 304B IPC. So far as conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is concerned, we have already expressed our doubt whether in the present case death was due to hanging or strangulation. We cannot say surely that the deceased was murdered. Even for the sake of argument if we assume that deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home, father-in-law, mother-in-law, two younger brother-in-laws, one elder brother-in-law and sister-in-law were also present in the house. In the written report a day before the incident, it has been specifically disclosed by the deceased to her father that she is being given beating by two Devar (younger brother-in-laws), mother-in-law and sister-in-law. There was no reference that husband was giving beating to the wife. Therefore, we cannot draw presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act against the husband Shyam Lal alone. There was no reference that husband was giving beating to the wife. Therefore, we cannot draw presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act against the husband Shyam Lal alone. For us it is safe to draw presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act to hold that husband is responsible for committing dowry death under Section 304B IPC. 25. Consequently, we set aside the conviction of the appellant, Shyam Lal for offence under Section 302 IPC, but convict him for offence under Section 304B IPC. 26. In Sunil Dutt Sharma vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ( (2014) 4 SCC 375 ) in a case of strangulation, the Hon'ble Apex Court had set aside the sentence of life imprisonment and had reduced sentence of husband for offence under Section 304B IPC from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment. We have already held that in the present case, the appellant is guilty of offence under Section 304B IPC. A Division Bench of this court in the case of Deen Mohammad @ Murli vs. The State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No.13/2005, decided on 25.11.2014 = 2015(1) RLW 521) relying upon Sunil Dutt Sharma (supra) case, after affirming conviction for offence under Section 304B IPC had reduced the sentence of life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment. It will be apposite here to reproduce the following part of the judgment in Deen Mohammad @ Muri (supra) case:- “Having affirmed the conviction of the appellants, we have been called upon to answer whether sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the learned Trial Court, in the facts and circumstances, is adequate and justified? Counsel for the appellants had relied upon case of Sunil Dutt Sharma (supra) wherein Their Lordships referring to case law, had culled out the principles which till now had been applied for awarding death as sentence and thereafter had observed that application of same princi-ples while determining sentence in the case of dowry death also make better sense. In a very erudite judgment by culling out the principles laid in Jagmohan Singh vs. The State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 20 , and Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 , it was held that since sentencing is an onerous exercise to be undertaken by the court, court should take note of aggravating and in mitigating circumstances. Their lordships in case of Sunil Dutt Sharma (supra) had also taken note of principles laid in a recent pronouncement by Hon'ble Apex Court in Sangeet and Another vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452 . It was held that evolution of principles of sentencing policy are to be distinguished from judge centric to fair amount of certainty. It will be appropriate for us to extensively quote from the judgment rendered by Apex Court in Sunil Dutt Sharma's case (supra):- “10. Are we to understand that the quest and search for a sound jurisprudential basis for imposing a particular sentence on an offender is destined to remain elusive and the sentencing parameters in this country are bound to remain judge centric? The issue though predominantly dealt with in the context of cases involving the death penalty has tremendous significance to the Criminal Jurisprudence of the country inasmuch as in addition to the numerous offences under various special laws in force, hundreds of offences are enumerated in the Penal Code, punishment for which could extend from a single day to 10 years or even for life, a situation made possible by the use of the seemingly same expressions in different provisions of the Penal Code as noticed in the opening part of this order. 11. As noticed, the “net value” of the huge number of in depth exercises performed since Jagmohan Singh (supra) has been effectively and systematically culled out in Sangeet and Sankar Kisanrao Khade (supra). The identified principles could provide a sound objective basis for sentencing thereby minimizing individualized and judge centric perspectives. Such principles bear a fair amount of affinity to the principles applied in foreign jurisdictions, a resume of which is available in the decision of this Court in State of Punjab vs. Prem Sagar and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 550 . The difference is not in the identity of the principles; it lies in the realm of application thereof to individual situations. While in India application of the principles is left to the judge hearing the case, in certain foreign jurisdictions such principles are formulated under the authority of the statute and are applied on principles of categorization of offences which approach, however, has been found by the Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh (supra) to be inappropriate to our system. While in India application of the principles is left to the judge hearing the case, in certain foreign jurisdictions such principles are formulated under the authority of the statute and are applied on principles of categorization of offences which approach, however, has been found by the Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh (supra) to be inappropriate to our system. The principles being clearly evolved and securely entrenched, perhaps, the answer lies in consistency in approach. 12. To revert to the main stream of the case, we see no reason as to why the principles of sentencing evolved by this Court over the years through largely in the context of the death penalty will not be applicable to all lesser sentences so long as the sentencing judge is vested with the discretion to award a lesser or a higher sentence resembling the swing of the pendulum from the minimum to the maximum. In fact, we are reminded of the age old infallible logic that what is good to one situation would hold to be equally good to another like situation. Beside paragraph 163 (underlined portion) of Bachan Singh (supra), reproduced earlier, bears testimony to the above fact. 13. Would the above principles apply to sentencing of an accused found guilty of the offence under Section 304-B inasmuch as the said offence is held to be proved against the accused on basis of a legal presumption? This is the next question that has to be dealt with. So long there is credible evidence of cruelty occasioned by demand(s) for dowry, any unnatural death of a woman within seven years of her marriage makes the husband or a relative of the husband of such woman liable for the offence of “dowry death” under Section 304-B though there may not be any direct involvement of the husband or such relative with the death in question. In a situation where commission of an offence is held to be proved by means of a legal presumption the circumstances surrounding the crime to determine the presence of aggravating circumstances (crime test) may not be readily forthcoming unlike a case where there is evidence of overt criminal acts establishing the direct involvement of the accused with the crime to enable the Court to come to specific conclusions with regard to the barbarous or depraved nature of the crime committed. The necessity to combat the menace of demand for dowry or to prevent atrocities on women and like social evils as well as the necessity to maintain the purity of social conscience cannot be determinative of the quantum of sentence inasmuch as the said parameters would be common to all offences under Section 304-B of the Penal Code. The above, therefore, cannot be elevated to the status of acceptable jurisprudential principles to act as a rational basis for awarding varying degrees of punishment on a case to case basis. The search for principles to satisfy the crime test in an offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code must, therefore, lie elsewhere. Perhaps, the time spent between marriage and the death of the woman; the attitude and conduct of the accused towards the victim before her death; the extent to which the demand for dowry was persisted with and the manner and circumstances of commission of the cruelty would be a surer basis for determination of the crime test. Coupled with the above, the fact whether the accused was also charged with the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and the basis of his acquittal of the said charge would be another very relevant circumstance. As against this the extenuating/mitigating circumstances which would determine the “criminal test” must be allowed to have a full play. The aforesaid two sets of circumstances being mutually irreconcilable cannot be arranged in the form of a balance sheet as observed in Sangeet (supra) but it is the cumulative effect of the two sets of different circumstances that has to be kept in mind while rendering the sentencing decision. This, according to us, would be the correct approach while dealing with the question of sentence so far as the offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code is concerned.” In Hari Om's (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court considering question of sentence for offence under Section 304-B IPC, took note of case law on this question, and after considering various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, held as under:- “22. In the case of Hem Chand vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 727 , the courts below had awarded life term to the accused under Sec. 304-B read with Section 498-A but this Court reduced it to 10 years. In the case of Hem Chand vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 727 , the courts below had awarded life term to the accused under Sec. 304-B read with Section 498-A but this Court reduced it to 10 years. This was also a case where the accused was a police officer who had suffered life imprisonment. This Court held as under: “7........ the accused-appellant was a police employee and instead of checking the crime, he himself indulged therein and precipitated in it and that bridekilling cases are on the increase and therefore a serious view has to be taken. As mentioned above, Section 304-B IPC only raises presumption and lays down that minimum sentence should be seven years but it may extend to imprisonment for life. Therefore awarding extreme punishment of imprisonment for life should be in rare cases and not in every case. 8. Hence, we are of the view that a sentence of 10 years' RI would meet the ends of justice. We, accordingly while confir-ming the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC, reduce the sentence of imprisonment for life to 10 years' RI...” 23. xxx xxx xxx xxx 24. xxx xxx xxx xxx 25. Applying the principle of law laid down in the aforementioned cases and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet, if we reduce the sentence of the appellant from life imprisonment to that of 10 years. In our view, this case does not fall in the category of a “rare case” as envisaged by this Court so as to award to the appellant the life imprisonment. That apart, we also notice that while awarding life imprisonment, the courts below did not assign any reasons. Having noted the principles of law governing sentencing, Their Lordships held that since in the case of Sunil Dutt Sharma (supra) death was due to strangulation and two injuries were present being laceration on the forehead and scalp, it was appropriate to award sentence of ten years to the appellant in that case under Section 304-B IPC as same shall serve ends of justice.” 27. Following the dictum of law laid down in the case of Sunil Dutt Sharma (supra) and Hari Om vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (Cr. Following the dictum of law laid down in the case of Sunil Dutt Sharma (supra) and Hari Om vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (Cr. Appeal No.1167/2011, decided on 31.10.2014), we reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant Shyam Lal from life imprisonment to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 304B IPC. However, we further order that the appellant shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof, shall undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. We also uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence under Section 498A IPC. Sentence awarded on both the counts shall run concurrently. 28. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.