JUDGMENT : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 31-012024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases), Jalore, whereby the learned trial court declined the appellant’s request for further investigation in the matter. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, examined the case diary, and conferred with the investigating officer, this Court has also closely analyzed the post-mortem report and relevant records, including references in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence regarding hanging and strangulation. 2.1 Although there is presently no direct evidence pointing towards the culpability of any specific accused, significant suspicious circumstances raise legitimate concerns. The coloured photographs attached to the case diary do not convincingly suggest a case of suicidal hanging. The marks on the neck of the deceased are inconsistent with the typical features seen in suicidal hanging. While this Court does not claim to override the findings of the medical experts, it must be emphasized that its observations should be considered as expressing judicial doubt. 2.2 Importantly, the post-mortem report, prepared by a duly constituted medical board, indicates that saliva was not found dribbling from the mouth—a common symptom in cases of hanging. In hanging, the tilted position of the neck usually causes saliva to drip onto the chin and chest. This symptom was absent in the present case. To provide clarity on the medico-legal differences between hanging and strangulation , a comparative table is set out below: Hanging Strangulation 1. Mostly suicidal. 1. Mostly homicidal. 2. 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. 2. 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. 3. Abrasions and ecchymoses round about the edges of the ligature mark, rare. 3. Abrasions and ecchymoses round about the edges of the ligature mark, common. 4. Subcutaneous tissues under the mark, white, hard, and glistening. 4. Subcutaneous tissues under the mark, ecchymosed. 5. Injury to the muscles of the neck, rare. 5. Injury to the muscles of the neck, common. 6. Carotid arteries, internal coats ruptured in violent cases of a long drop. 6. Carotid arteries, internal coats ordinarily ruptured 7. 4. Subcutaneous tissues under the mark, white, hard, and glistening. 4. Subcutaneous tissues under the mark, ecchymosed. 5. Injury to the muscles of the neck, rare. 5. Injury to the muscles of the neck, common. 6. Carotid arteries, internal coats ruptured in violent cases of a long drop. 6. Carotid arteries, internal coats ordinarily ruptured 7. Fracture of the larynx and trachea, very rare and that too in judicial hanging. 7. Fracture of the larynx and trachea, often found, also hyoid bone. 8. Fracture-dislocation of the cervical vertebre, common in judicial hanging. 8. Fracture-dislocation of the cervical vertebre, rare. 9. Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body, usually not present. 9. Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the face, neck and other parts of the body, usually present. 10. Face, usually pale and no petechie. 10. Face, congested, livid and marked with petechie. 11. Neck, stretched and elongated in fresh bodies. 11. Neck, not so. 12. External signs of asphyxia, usually not well marked. 12. External signs of asphyxia, very well marked (minimal if death due to vaso-vagal effect). 13. Bleeding from the nose, mouth and ears, very rare. 13. Bleeding from the nose, mouth and ears, may be found. 14. Saliva, running out of the mouth down on the chin and chest. 14. Saliva, no such running. 15. Emphysematous patches on the surface of the lungs, not presesnt. 15. Emphysematous patches on the surface of the lungs, may be present. 2.3 The medical board clearly opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. Why the police officers are adamant to show that it is a case of hanging is a further question to ponder. How the opinion of a duly constituted board of three doctors, who personally examined the body of the deceased and conducted the autopsy, could be disregarded is another point requiring deliberation. It may be that sufficient material has not been collected regarding the culpability of any accused; however, that cannot be a valid ground for altering the mode of death. If it is a case of strangulation, it could not have been self-inflicted, and in the ordinary course of nature, a presumption would arise that the deceased was strangulated by someone. This involves the death of a poor person. If it is a case of strangulation, it could not have been self-inflicted, and in the ordinary course of nature, a presumption would arise that the deceased was strangulated by someone. This involves the death of a poor person. The prayer for further investigation by an expert body ought not to have been declined by the learned trial Judge. 3. Despite this, the investigating agency appears insistent on treating the death as a case of hanging, which raises serious concerns about the objectivity of the investigation. 4. It is troubling that the opinion of a duly constituted medical board of three doctors, who personally conducted the autopsy, has not been given due weight. While it may be true that sufficient evidence has not yet been gathered against any accused, this cannot justify reclassifying the mode of death. 5. If the death was caused by strangulation, it is highly unlikely to have been self-inflicted, and under normal circumstances, a presumption of homicide would arise. 6. This is a case concerning the unnatural death of a poor person, and justice demands a fair and thorough investigation. The trial court erred in declining the request for further investigation, especially when strong suspicious circumstances had been brought to its notice. 7. At the stage of considering a protest petition or an application for further investigation, the court is not required to conduct a detailed evaluation of the evidence. When serious doubts or suspicious circumstances are raised, it is both appropriate and necessary to allow further investigation. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 31-01-2024 is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed as under: (i) Return the case diary to the SHO of the concerned police station. (ii) The Superintendent of Police (SP) of the district shall forward the file to the Inspector General (IG) of the Range. (iii) The IG shall appoint a police officer not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police (Addl. SP) to conduct further investigation into the matter. 9. Upon completion of the further investigation, the investigating officer shall file the result before the competent court.