As far as the injuries in the Inquest report not being noticed in the post-mortem report is concerned, there can no doubt that the medical doctor knows exactly what medical injuries are and ordinarily in case of inconsistency, the medical report of the doctor should prevail.

1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1181 OF 2011
JAVED ABDUL RAJJAQ SHAIKH … APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
K.M. JOSEPH, J.

  1. The appellant, calls in question, his conviction under
    Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
    referred to as ‘the IPC’, for short) by the High Court.
    Originally, the appellant was accused no.1 before the Trial
    Court. Accused nos. 2 to 4 were his parents and his brother.
    They were altogether charged with offence under Section 302
    read with Section 34 of the IPC. This is besides being
    charged under Section 498A of the IPC. The Trial Court
    2
    convicted all the accused for offences under Section 302
    read with Section 34 and Section 498A of the IPC. On appeal
    filed by the appellant and the other accused, accused nos.
    2 to 4 stand acquitted of all the offences. The appellant
    has also been acquitted of the offence under Section 498A
    of the IPC. However, the High Court, by the impugned order,
    had convicted him for the offence under Section 302 of the
    IPC instead of Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
    This is besides a fine.
  2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the appellant
    and the other accused committed murder of the wife of the
    appellant. As already noticed, the charge was of committing
    murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
  3. The father of the appellant lodged a complaint wherein
    it was inter alia alleged that the marriage of the appellant
    and his deceased wife took place prior to two years as per
    custom. Half tola gold remained to be provided. Due to
    poverty, he could not provide half tola gold. The accused
    3
    maintained the deceased properly for the period of first
    eight months. Three months prior to the incident, the
    deceased disclosed to the complainant and his wife that all
    the accused were maltreating the deceased by insisting her
    to bring half tola gold, dress and Rs. 5,000/- for business
    of bakery. They insisted her to bring this from her parents
    and assaulted her. They did not provide food to her and
    maltreated her. She was threatened with murder if the demand
    was not fulfilled. So, deceased decided to stay with her
    father for two months. Within two months, nobody from the
    accused came to receive her. The deceased disclosed about
    the maltreatment to his sister. His sister convinced the
    deceased and brought her to the house of the accused. Eight
    days prior to the incident, his sister informed him that
    accused Javed visited her house and demanded half tola gold,
    dress and the amount. On 10.03.2005, he received
    information by phone that deceased was serious and admitted
    to a hospital at Naldurg. The complaint activised the
    Police. Investigation was done. Charge-sheet was filed.
    Charges were framed, as already mentioned. Rejecting the
    4
    contentions of the appellant and other accused, the Trial
    Court convicted them. It was found that the deceased had
    been throttled. The evidence of the Doctor, supported the
    case of murder. The claim that it was a suicide by the
    deceased, was rejected.
  4. The High Court, however, found only the appellant
    guilty under Section 302 of the IPC.
  5. We have heard Shri D. N. Goburdhan, learned counsel for
    the appellant who appeared before us and also learned
    counsel for the State.
  6. Counsel for the appellant would submit that the case
    of the prosecution was one of commission of offence under
    Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was the case
    of the prosecution that all the accused together committed
    the act of murder. He would complain that in appeal, when
    the High Court found it fit to acquit accused nos.2 to 4,
    the accused cannot thereafter be convicted. He drew our
    attention to the judgment of this Court in Sawal Das v. State
    5
    of Bihar1 and Sukhram s/o Ramratan v. State of Madhya
    Pradesh2.
  7. He would submit that when the prosecution failed to
    establish the guilt of accused nos.2 to 4, in the
    circumstances of this case, it must be taken that
    prosecution has also failed to establish the case against
    the appellant as it would be the case under Section 302
    simpliciter. He would submit that it was a case where the
    deceased had taken her own life. Appellant and her brother
    had married around the same time. Two years into the
    marriage, the appellant and his late wife/deceased were not
    blessed with a child. On the other hand, a child was born
    to his brother. This caused frustration, and finally, led
    the deceased to take the extreme step.
  8. Next, he would contend that the incident took place and
    the post-mortem was conducted allegedly on 10.03.2005.
    However, the report is prepared allegedly only on
    25.08.2005. Learned counsel posed the question as to the
    1 (1974) 4 SCC 193
    2 1989 Suppl.(1) SCC 214
    6
    possibility that the post-mortem report, in fact, may be
    related to somebody else. In this regard, he drew our
    attention to the deposition of the father of the deceased.
    Father of the deceased had deposed that it was true that
    the marriage of the appellant and the deceased was performed
    happily and there was no quarrel between the spouses. He
    had also deposed that the custom of jumaki was followed.
    That some jumaki was performed in the house of the appellant
    and some jumaki was performed in his house. Further, he has
    stated as follows:
    “It is true that there are four rooms in
    the house of accused. It is true that accused
    Nos.1 and 4 were using separate bed room in
    the house. It is true that within six months
    from the marriage, when ever Sultana visited
    to my house, she told me that I had performed
    her marriage in proper house and she is happy
    in the house of accused. It is true that my
    daughter was co-operative and helpful
    natured girl.”
    “It is true that when Sultana came to my
    house for Ramzan’ festival, that time,
    Sultana told me that I should take her in the
    house of accused and there is no
    entertainment in my house.”
    7
  9. He would further point out that reversing the verdict
    of the Trial Court, the High Court has acquitted the
    appellant as also the other accused of the charge under
    Section 498A of the IPC. This means that the appellant was
    not found guilty of cruelty under the said provision. It
    was, therefore, wholly illogical and not warranted by the
    evidence to convict the appellant under Section 302 of the
    IPC. The inconsistency between the inquest report and the
    post-mortem report was highlighted and it was submitted
    that it has not received due consideration. He would submit
    that the external injuries which were noted in the inquest
    panchanama in respect of swelling of the head, ligature mark
    of rope to neck, injuries to thigh and back are not noted
    by the Doctor in the post-mortem report. He complains that
    the Trial Court has got over this by merely finding that
    in a case of difference of injuries between the inquest
    panchnama and the post-mortem report, the post-mortem
    report will prevail over the inquest panchnama. He reminds
    that the post-mortem report has been prepared after more
    than five months from the date on which the post-mortem was
    8
    allegedly performed. He would submit that when doubts were
    established, the appellant should have been the beneficiary
    of doubts. He would further submit that if an adult person
    is throttled, there would be resistance and the resistance
    would be manifested. There is no evidence of any such
    resistance. All this points to the deceased having
    committed suicide. He further points out that as noted by
    the Court itself, it was the appellant who took the deceased
    to the hospital. Had the appellant been the culprit, he
    would have destroyed the body and certainly not taken the
    person to the hospital.
  10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State supported
    the judgment passed by the High Court. He would point out
    that as regards the discrepancy in the date of preparation
    of the post-mortem report, questions have been put in the
    examination of P.W.1 doctor and answers elicited. There was
    a valid explanation which was the non-availability of one
    of the doctors. He further pointed out that the provisional
    9
    report was given on the date of the post-mortem, i.e., on
    10.03.2005.
    THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT
  11. The trial court has accepted that the following
    circumstances stood proved against the appellant and other
    accused:
    (1) Motive;
    (2) Custodial death of the deceased;
    (3) Non-disclosure of death by the appellant to the
    complainant(father of the deceased);
    (4) False evidence of accused of hanging;
    (5) Inquest panchnama;
    (6) Spot panchnama.
  12. As regards motive, the trial court relied on the
    evidence of PW 3 that all the accused were insisting on the
    deceased to bring half tola gold which remained to be
    provided by the time of marriage besides one choice dress
    and Rs.5000/- for Bakery business. The appellant
    reiterated his demand and repeated his threat to kill
    10
    deceased if the demands were not met after eight days of
    her return to his house. The trial court also placed
    reliance on PW 4, the aunt of the deceased in this regard.
    It is after the threat mentioned above that the deceased
    died after 8 to 10 days. It is found that medical evidence
    showed that the death is caused by throttling. All the
    accused by their joint act -one by pressing her neck, one
    by catching hold of her hand, another by catching hold of
    her leg and one by pressing her leg killed her. There is
    medical evidence to prove violence by killing her by
    throttling by pressing her neck. As the demands made by
    the accused were not fulfilled, in furtherance of common
    intention, the appellant’s wife was killed. All the
    accused were residing in the same house. They participated
    in the crime and brought the body before the doctor saying
    she hanged herself. Therefore, motive to kill is clearly
    established. There is no evidence to prove that PW-4 was
    at the house.
    11
  13. Exhibit 24 is enlisted to show that the appellant
    brought the dead body before the doctor. Evidence of the
    complainant (PW-3) and PW-4 is referred to show that the
    deceased was residing with all the accused in the house.
    When it is noticed that death took place due to throttling,
    then the accused must prove as to how she died. While
    explaining in the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,
    none of the accused explained about the death of the
    deceased. The point as to custodial death was found
    established.
  14. As regards non-disclosure of death by the accused to
    the complainant, it is found that PW-3 complainant has
    deposed that about 8.00 A.M. on the date of the incident,
    he came to know from Isaq, son of PW-4 by telephone from
    Solapur. The accused had not disclosed about the death to
    the complainant. PW-4 has not deposed that she was
    intimated. The accused seemed to have kept mum after the
    death and has not reported to complainant and other
    relatives. Also, the Court goes on to find that a false
    12
    statement was made regarding the death of the deceased by
    hanging which is contrary to the medical evidence.
  15. In regard to the inquest panchnama, it is stated that
    it shows external injury like rope mark at neck, swelling
    to head, injury to thigh and back as well as two teeth from
    the front side are broken and blood was oozing from the jaw.
    It is the case of the accused that the injuries noted on
    the thigh, back and swelling to head and ligature mark of
    rope to neck is not noted in the post-mortem in Exhibit 22.
    Therefore, there is a conflict between the inquest
    panchnama and the post-mortem report. The trial Court goes
    on to find that the external injuries noted in the inquest
    panchnama as noted above, were not noted by the doctor in
    the post-mortem which is official. It is concluded that when
    there is difference of injuries in the inquest panchnama
    and the post-mortem, post mortem will prevail over the
    inquest panchnama because panchnama (witnesses) are not
    experts like doctors. Accused cannot get benefit of
    inconsistencies. Expert evidence based on scientific
    13
    method will prevail over knowledge of ignorant men in that
    field. It was found that PW-1 was an eminent doctor and in
    the last five years, he had done many post-mortems and he
    was treated as an expert man. Thereafter, the trial Court
    also relied upon the spot panchnama. The spot panchnama
    was effected on the very day of incident i.e. on 10.3.2005.
    One rope of nylon was seized. The spot of incident was one
    of the rooms situated in the house of the accused. It is
    having two-metre height wall. The height of the room is
    5-feet 10-inches. The photograph of the deceased, the
    panchnama and the photograph of the place of the incident
    proved by PW-5 led the Court to hold that the height of the
    room is such that it was not probable for any person having
    normal height to hang in that room and normal height of the
    man is 5 feet or more. The Court further proceeds to find
    that the F.I.R. is late but goes on to hold that merely
    because the F.I.R. is late, it does not mean that the case
    is false. Having referred to the circumstances, the Court
    also found that the complaint was filed by the complainant
    late on the next day at the night hours but the explanation
    14
    of the complainant that due to death of his daughter, he
    was unhappy was found acceptable. Regarding the contention
    of the accused that it was a case of suicide as the deceased
    had not delivered a child whereas the wife of the fourth
    accused (sister-in-law) of the deceased had delivered a
    child and therefore, she was frustrated was found
    unacceptable. The deceased was only 20 years old. At the
    age of 20 years, it could not be said that she cannot become
    pregnant in future. It was found that it was nobody’s case
    that the deceased was having some problem having a child.
    There is no case of any medical treatment.
    FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT
  16. This is a case entirely based on circumstantial
    evidence. The deceased was living in her matrimonial home.
    She was living with her husband. As regards the case under
    Section 498A IPC is concerned, the High Court finds that
    there is reason to infer that the deceased was leading a
    happy married life. The following part of the cross
    15
    examination of the PW 3, father of the deceased is relied
    upon:
    “It is true that there are four rooms in
    the house of accused. It is true that
    accused Nos. 1 and 4 were using separate bed
    room in the house. It is true within six
    months from her marriage, whenever Sultana
    visited to my house, she told me that I had
    performed her marriage in proper house and
    she is happy in the house of husband. It is
    true that my daughter was co-operative and
    helpful natured girl.”
    “It is true that when Sultana came to my
    house for Ramzan’ festival, that time,
    Sultana told me that I should take her in
    the house of accused and there is no
    entertainment in my house.”
  17. On the basis of the aforesaid, the High Court finds that
    the same speaks of a different story. The deceased expressed
    her desire to return to the place of her husband (appellant)
    at a point earlier than contemplated by her father. It is
    found that there was ample admission on the part of the
    father of the deceased and his sister that the parents did
    not take any legal steps such as lodging complaint with the
    police station nor did they call elderly and respectable
    relatives for a meeting and inviting accused persons to
    16
    explain their conduct. The High Court found it difficult
    to believe that there was a persistent demand from all the
    four accused. In view of certain admissions, PW 4 aunt of
    the deceased was found unreliable. The High Court found
    that it was difficult to believe that all the four accused
    were persistently demanding gold or amount and for
    pressurising the deceased or that they were subjecting her
    to ill treatment such as physical beating or starvation.
    It is thereafter that the case of the appellant was found
    to stand on a different footing. The deposition of PW 4
    is noted, namely, “thereafter after 8 days Javed accused
    came to my house at Solapur. He told me that his
    father-in-law has not provided gold, cloth and money till
    now and if it is not provided, he will kill sultana and thus
    by giving the threat he went away.” The conveying of the
    aforesaid message to him by his sister on telephone gave
    assurance to the deposition of PW4. If at all, it was found
    that there was pressure upon the deceased for complying with
    the demands, it was from appellant alone. As regards the
    circumstances relied upon by the trial Court in regard to
    17
    their motive, the High Court proceeds to find that the
    motive is not proved as against accused 2 to 4 in as strong
    manner as against the appellant. As far as the custodial
    death is concerned, it was found from Exhibit 24 that the
    deceased died sometime before 7.15 a.m. Post-mortem was
    performed at 3.30 p.m.. Therefore, it can be ascertained
    that the death ensued 12 hours earlier sometime about
    3.30 a.m. Support from P.W.3 is drawn to conclude that the
    two newly married couple were using separate bed room which
    allowed the accused 2 to 4 to escape from the allegation
    of custodial death against them at that time of the day and
    only the couple is bound to be in the bed room. Therefore,
    custodial death was proved only against the appellant.
    Referring to the prosecutor’s argument based on the
    injuries of the deceased that it was not the husband alone
    but others as held, was not found the only possible
    inference. Breaking of the front teeth was indicative of
    some violence. The High Court proceeds to find that a
    possibility cannot be ruled out that the victim was found
    unguarded and last but not the least, the impression injury
    18
    on the thigh and ankle cannot be ruled out, even though the
    sole assailant tried to pin down the victim by riding on
    the person of the victim and putting pressure on the thighs
    by his knees and on the ankles by his feet. It is found
    that although admissions are obtained from the doctor that
    such injuries are possible if the victim is gripped by
    someone else such admission is to be read only to the extent
    of medical opinion, that is, the injuries are possible, if
    the pressure is put on the thighs or ankles gripped. It
    was found an inference of involvement of more than one
    accused on the basis of medical evidence, is a matter of
    imagination and therefore somewhat risky. Lastly, the
    statement of the appellant when he had admitted the deceased
    to the hospital that he had brought up the deceased for
    treatment that she had hanged herself in an attempt to
    commit suicide, was used against the appellant as it was
    found to be settled legal position that false information
    by the deceased who is obliged to offer explanation for
    death is a circumstance which strengthens the chain of
    circumstantial evidence. It is accordingly that the
    19
    appeal was partly allowed. His conviction under Section
    498-A IPC was set aside, so was his conviction under Section
    302 read with Section 34 IPC and he stood convicted under
    Section 302 IPC alone. The appeal filed by the other three
    accused was allowed.
    THE POST MORTEM REPORT
  18. The injuries noted in paragraph 17 of the Post Mortem
    report are as follows:
    “Bruising and ecchymosis present on both
    sides on neck from center to laterally on both
    sides of neck about 7 cm x 1 cm.
    1.Abrasion (crescentric) present on left
    side extending from center to lateral
    about 5 cm long.
    2.Pale pressure mark present over both legs
    ante collaterally over ankle region about
    7 cm x 1 cm.
    3.Contusion of upper lip 3 cm x 2 cm.”
    Under paragraph 20 which deals with injuries to the Thorax
    region, the following injuries have been noted:
    “A] Walls, ribs, cartilages/ a & b are
    noted as normal.
    B] Pleura.
    C] Larynx, trachea and bronchi
    20
  19. Subcutaneous tissue over both
    lateral aspect of both side swollen and
    subcutaneous haemorrhage present.
  20. Both sternomastoid muscle crushed
    and severe haemorrhage present beneath
    it.
  21. Thyroid cartilage crushed laterally
    on both sides more on left side.
  22. Cricoid cartilage crushed on both
    sides.
  23. Multiple small clots of blood seen
    around the laryangeal cartilages.
    D] Right Lung-Both lung congested.
    E] Left Lung – with petechiae and exuding
    dark blood on section.
    G] Heart with weight – Left side contained
    little blood, Right side of the heart
    contained full of dark fluid blood.
    Bucal cavity, teeth gongue: Upper left
    central incisor partly broken and right
    central incisor totally broken within
    bleeding from gums.”
    Stomach contents were noted as empty.
    OPINION AS TO THE CAUSE
  24. It is stated that Dr. I.C. Kolle and Dr. A.I. Syed have
    done the post-mortem on 10.03.2005. Under the opinion as
    to the probable cause of death, it is written Acute Cardio
    21
    respiratory arrest. Secondary to acute asphyxia secondary
    to throttling. The report is signed dated 25.08.2005. In
    the last page it is stated, forwarded to the police custody
    and the date is shown as 10.03.2005.
    DEPOSITION OF P.W.1 – THE DOCTOR WHO CARRIED OUT THE POST
    MORTEM
  25. PW.1 is Dr. I.C. Kolle aged 32 years. He states that
    he has carried out nearly 32 post-mortems during his service
    period. On 10.03.2005 he received the dead body of the
    deceased in this case from the police station. He started
    doing post-mortem at about 3.30 p.m. and completed by about
    4.45 p.m.. The inquest panchnama was given to him by the
    concerned police station. He noticed eyes semi open,
    tongue within mouth which has been noted at paragraph 13
    of the post-mortem note. He noticed 4 injuries on the dead
    body and those were noted as surface wounds and the injuries
    are at paragraph No.17 of the post-mortem note. He further
    deposed that these are surface injuries and ante-mortem
    injuries. These injuries occurred due to throttling by
    22
    pressing neck by fingers and palm. Thereafter, he noted
    the injuries which we have already extracted. He prepared
    the note. It is in his handwriting and signed by him.
    Dr. Syed was with him as colleague and he also signed on
    the post-mortem note. Injuries 1 and 2 noted in paragraph
    17 are corresponding to the internal injury of Larynx,
    trachea and bronchi noted in paragraph 20 are only probable
    by pressing the neck by using fingers and palm. These
    injuries are sufficient to cause the death of the deceased.
    The external injury, namely No.4, that is contusion of upper
    lip is corresponding to injury to teeth and tongue. These
    two injuries are probable by pressing the mouth by hand.
    Paragraph 7 and 8 of the PW1 deposition:
    “Injury no. 3 noted in para no. 17
    occurred to both legs are probable by
    caught hold of both the legs with pressure
    of hand.
    Injury nos. 1 to 4 are probable at once,
    if one person caught hold the legs by
    pressing with his hands of that deceased,
    one person if press the mouth by his hand
    and another person press the neck by his
    hand and all these persons acted so at one
    time, to deceased, injury nos. 1 to 4 are
    probable at one time.”
    23
    He agrees with the proposition given by Modi’s Medical
    Jurisprudence, 22nd edition at page no.333 “Bruises or
    contrusion injuries which are caused by compression. He
    also agrees with the following statement contained in Modi
    on Medical Jurisprudence 22nd Edition:
    “Suicidal strangulation is not very
    common, though sometimes cases are met
    with. In these cases, some contrivancem is
    always made to keep the ligature tight
    after insensibility supervenes. This is
    done by twisting a cord several times round
    the neck and then tying a knot, which is
    usually single and in front or at the side
    or back of the neck, by twisting a cord
    tightly by means of a stick, stone or some
    other solid material, or by tightening the
    ends of a cord by tying them to the hands
    or feet or to a peg in a wall or to the leg
    of bed. In such cases, injuries to the deep
    structures of the neck and marks of
    violence on other parts of the body are, as
    a rule, absent.”
    He agrees with the said proposition. He says according to
    him in suicidal death there are no marks of violence and
    in homicidal death there are marks of violence. He also
    24
    agrees with the following proposition from the work Modi’s
    Medical Jurisprudence at page 270:
    “3. Saliva- Dribbling out of the mouth down
    on the chin and chest.
  26. Neck – Stretched and clongated in fresh
    bodies.
  27. 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 parchmentlink.
  28. Injury to the muscles of the neck- Rare.
  29. Scratches, abrasions and bruises on the
    face, neck and other parts of the body –
    Usually not present.”
  30. He states that the above features can be noticed in a
    case of hanging and he agrees with the same proposition.
    While doing post-mortem he deposed he has not noticed any
    of the above symptoms on the dead body and it is not noted
    in the post-mortem as it is not seen. He definitely opines
    that in the given case, the death occurred due to throttling
    by external violence and it is homicidal death. He goes
    on to depose that injury No.2 and 3 in column 20 of the post
    mortem are only to be noticed in case of homicidal death.
    And these are marks of violence and thus cannot be noticed
    25
    in case of hanging and suicidal death. He issued Exh. 23
    provisional death certificate immediately to the police.
    It is in the hand writing of Dr. Syed. Both he and Dr. Syed
    have signed it. In cross examination he would state as
    follows:
    The dead body of the deceased was brought at about 7 to
    7.30 a.m. After checking the deceased was declared
    dead and information was given to the police. He denies
    that when deceased was brought she was alive. He denies
    that he was confused and the exact time of the death was
    not mentioned. Rigor Mortis was stated to develop 3
    hour after death and completes within 12 hours. He has
    not preserved the viscera. According to him Police
    Commissioner immediately demanded provisional death
    certificate. He denies that he issued the post-mortem
    report on 25.08.2005. The post-mortem note was already
    prepared and one doctor was not available to sign it and
    therefore after signing it, it was issued. He denies
    that he has prepared on 25.08.2005. He further denies
    that when the body of deceased was brought, it had
    26
    elongated neck. He states it is untrue to say that
    Injury No.1 in para 17 of the post-mortem note can appear
    in case of hanging also. Bruises and ecchymoses are
    sometimes seen in case of hanging also in the groove of
    the ligature mark. He deposed that it is not true that
    Injury No.3 in para No.17 of the PM note is not at all
    possible to occur when the body is in hanging condition
    and some persons by catching one leg and another leg are
    trying to remove the dead body. He says in further
    cross examination that it is true that Injury No.1 in
    para 20(c) of post-mortem note is probable in the case
    of hanging. As far as Injury No.2 in Para 20(c), he
    states that it is not true that Injury No.2 occur in the
    case of hanging. He also deposed that it is not true
    to say that in the case of hanging thyroid cartilage may
    be crushed. He has not seen nail mark and scratch of
    nail mark on the face or neck of the deceased. He
    deposed that these types of marks used to be present in
    the case of throttling but it is not necessary to be
    present.
    27
    Injury No.5 at 20(c) occur in the case of hanging.
    Lungs getting congested is common in hanging as well as
    throttling. He further says that it is not true to say
    that in the case of hanging when person is struggling
    in that case teeth may break. He further says it is not
    true to say that saliva was coming out from the mouth
    of the deceased and relatives were cleaning it. He has
    not seen whether the face of the deceased was pale or
    not. In the case of strangulation by rope or ‘Dupatta’,
    the ligature mark may be noticed around the neck. While
    doing post-mortem he has noticed injuries at the head
    and back of the deceased. It is true that in the case
    of hanging, the eyes used to close or used to remain in
    semi close condition. It is true that in the case of
    hanging fracture of larynx and trachea – often found
    also hyoidbone. It is true he says that the deceased
    had not faced fracture to larynx, trachea and hyoidbone.
    In the case of hanging fracture by larynx and trachea
    – very rare and that too in judicial hanging. He denies
    that her stomach may remain empty due to vomiting. In
    28
    cross examination for the 4th accused, he states inter
    alia as follows:
    In case of hanging and in case of throttling pressure
    on neck is common factor. In the case of throttling
    by hand, a person can resist that throttling. In case
    of resistance there will be mark of nail on neck. The
    person who is facing throttling when one person is
    pressing the mouth and other person is catching the
    legs by using pressure of his hands he will resist by
    banging the hand on earth in that case there will be
    injuries to hands. It is probably if the legs are
    caught hold by hand, then it is possible to occur
    injury at posterior side of the leg. In post-mortem,
    no-injury marks on hands are noted. And also no
    injury marks at posterior side of leg is noted. He
    deposed that it is not true that the injuries in para
    17 are possible by accident and by assault also. He
    also says that it is not true to say that the injuries
    shown in in para 20 are possibly by hanging. Ligature
    mark are occurred on the basis of smoothness and
    29
    hardness of the things used for occurring of the
    ligature mark. It is true that if the smooth article
    like ‘Dupatta of Malmal’ used for hanging then there
    will be no ligature mark on the leg. He states it is
    not true that Injury Nos. 1 to 4 noted in paragraph
    17 are probable to occur one by one and not at once.
    It is not true that in case of hanging injury No.3 is
    possible by coming into contact of legs with stool and
    table etc. If only external injury No.1 and 2
    occurred as shown in paragraph 17 and immediately
    medical aid is provided he may survive. In the case
    of throttling by hands by using fingers and palm there
    cannot be fracture of larynx. In re-examination he
    said that in the case of strangulation by hand fracture
    of larynx and trachea is not necessary to be occurred
    even though it is said in column No.12 of strangulation
    at page No.270 (apparently in Modi’s work).
    According to him, fracture of larynx and trachea used
    to occur in strangulation but in the case of throttling
    by hand such fracture cannot occur. By using hard and
    30
    blunt object like stone and stick if the strangulation
    is caused, in that case fracture of larynx and trachea
    often found also hyoidbone.
  31. The differences between hanging and strangulation have
    been highlighted by Modi on Medical Jurisprudence and
    Toxicology, 25th Edition, as follows:
    Hanging Strangulation
  32. Most suicidal. 1. Mostly homicidal.
  33. Face-Usual pale and 2. Face-Congested, livid and
    petechiae rare. marked with petechiae.
  34. Saliva-Dribbling out of 3. Saliva-No such dribbling
    mouth down on the chin
    and chest.
  35. Neck-Stretched and 4. Neck-Not so.
    elongated in fresh bodies.
  36. External signs of asphyxia5. External signs of asphyxia,
    usually not well marked. very well marked (minimal if
    death due to vasovagal and
    carotid sinus effect.
  37. Ligature mark-Oblique, 6. Ligature mark-Horizontal or
    Non-continuous placed high transverse continuous, round
    Up in the neck between the the neck, low down in the neck
    Chin and the larynx, the below the thyroid, the base of
    Base of the groove or furrow the groove or furrow being
    Being hard, yellow and soft and reddish.
    Parachment-like.
  38. Abrasions and ecchymoses 7. Abrasions and ecchymoses round
    round about the edges of about the edges of the ligature
    the ligature mark, rare. Mark, common.
    31
  39. Subcutaneous tissues 8. Subcutaneous tissues under the
    Under the mark-White, mark-Ecchymosed.
    Hard and glistening.
  40. Injury to the muscles of 9. Injury to the muscles of the neckNeck-Rare. Common.
  41. Carotid arteries, 10. Carotid arteries, internal coats
    Internal coats ruptured in ordinarily ruptured.
  42. Fracture of the larynx 11. Fracture of the larynx, trachea
    and trachea-Very rare and and hyoid bone.
    may be found that too in
    judicial hanging.
  43. Fracture-dislocation of 12. Fracture-dislocation of the
    the cervical vertebrae- the cervical vertebrae-Rare.
    Common in judicial hanging.
  44. Scratches, abrasions and 13. Scratches, abrasions fingernail
    bruises on the face, neck marks and bruises on the face,
    and other parts of the body- neck and other parts of the bodyUsually not present. Usually present.
  45. No evidence of sexual 14. No evidence of sexual assault.
    Assault.
  46. Emphysematous bullae on 15. Emphysematous bullae on the
    Surface of the lungs- surface of the lungs – May be
    Not present. Present.
  47. As to what is the distinction between strangulation and
    throttling is also dealt within the self-same work:
    “Definition-Strangulation is defined as the
    compression of the neck by a force other than hanging.
    Weight of the body has nothing to do with
    strangulation.
    Ligature 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.
    32
    When constriction is produced by the pressure of the
    fingers and palms upon the throat, it is called as
    throttling. When strangulation is brought about by
    compressing the throat with a foot, knee, bend of
    elbow, or some other solid substances, it is known as
    mugging (strangle hold).
    A form of strangulation, known as Bansdola, is
    sometimes practised in northern India. In the form,
    a strong bamboo or lathi (wooden club) is placed across
    the throat and another across the back of the neck.
    These are strongly fastened t one end. A rope is
    passed round the other end, which is bound together,
    and the unfortunate victim is squeezed to death. The
    throat is also pressed by placing a lathi or bamboo
    across the front of the neck and standing with a foot
    on each of lathi or bamboo.
    Garrotting is another method that was used by thugs
    around 1862 in India. A rope or a loincloth is
    suddenly thrown over the head and quickly tightened
    around neck. Due to sudden loss of consciousness,
    there is no struggle. The assailant is then able to
    tie the ligature.”
  48. It is necessary in this case to look at the post-mortem
    and also the evidence of the medical officer P.W.1. In the
    light of the differences between hanging and strangulation,
    in a case of hanging, saliva will dribble down the mouth
    down on the chin and the chest whereas in a case of
    strangulation, there will be no such dribbling. P.W.1,
    Medical Officer was specifically asked with respect to
    Saliva. He has stated that while doing post-mortem he has
    33
    not noticed saliva. In cross examination also he states
    that it is not true to say that Saliva was coming out of
    the mouth of the deceased and relatives were cleaning it.
    In the case of hanging, the neck will be stretched,
    elongated in fresh bodies while it is not so in the case
    of strangulation. P.W.1 has stated that he has not noticed
    that the neck was stretched and elongated in the case of
    the deceased.
  49. P.W.1, it is true, has opined that in the case of
    hanging, eyes used to close or used to remain in semi closed
    condition. It may be noted at this juncture that paragraph
    13 of the post-mortem wherein it is stated eyes semi open,
    tongue within mouth.
    External Injury No.1 in paragraph 17 is stated to be
    bruising and ecchimoysses present on both side of neck about
    7 cm. x 1 cm.. In this connection the deposition of P.W.1
    doctor is relevant:
    “5. Injury nos. 1 and 2 noted in para
    no.17 are corresponding to internal injuries
    of larynx trachea and bronchi noted in para
    20 under the head thorax in PM note Ex.22.
    these injuries noted in PM note are only
    34
    probably by pressing the neck by using
    fingers and palm. These injuries are
    sufficient to cause the death of deceased in
    ordinary course of nature.”
  50. Abrasion and Ecchymosses round about the edges of
    ligature mark is stated to be common in case of
    strangulation. Further P.W. 1 deposes that upper external
    injury No.4, that is contusion, on upper lip noted in
    paragraph 17 is corresponding injury to teeth and tongue
    which is described in paragraph 21. He further states that
    these two injuries are probable for pressing mouth by hand.
  51. Injury to the muscles of the neck is stated to be
    common in case of strangulation whereas in a case of hanging
    injury to the muscles of the neck is rare. In this
    connection it is to be noticed that in paragraph 20 of the
    post-mortem, it is stated that both sternomastoid muscle
    crushed and severe haemorrhage present beneath it. In this
    connection, it is relevant to understand what is
    sternomastoid muscle and where it is located. The
    Sternocleidomastoid muscle is also known as sternomastoid
    35
    muscle. It is one of the largest and most superficial
    cervical muscle located in the superficial layer on the side
    of the neck. It has its origin from the middle portion of
    the clavical and the manubrium sternix. Manubrium sternix
    is upper most portion of the sternum bone. The post mortem
    finding in this case is to the effect that sternomashoid
    muscle is crushed and there is severe haemorrhage present
    beneath it. This feature is compatible with the case being
    one of strangulation as injury to the muscle of the neck
    is rare in hanging. Fracture – dislocation of the cervical
    vertebrae is common in judicial hanging whereas it is rare
    in the case of strangulation. The post-mortem result does
    not show that there is fracture or dislocation of cervical
    vertebrae. The cervical vertebrae are the vertebrae of the
    neck immediately below the skull. Neither in the
    post-mortem nor in the deposition of PW 1 is anything
    brought out to show that there is either fracture or
    dislocation of the cervical vertebrae. The absence of the
    same also probablises clearly the case of prosecution that
    this is a case of strangulation or rather throttling.
    36
  52. It is no doubt true that in the case of hanging,
    fracture of the larynx and trachea is very rare and that
    too it may be found in judicial hanging. On the other hand,
    fracture on the larynx, trachea and hyoidbone indicates
    strangulation. P.W.1 doctor states in cross examination
    thus say that it is true that the deceased had not faced
    fracture to the larynx, trachea or hyoidbone. P.W. 1 in
    the re-examination explains the absence of fracture to
    larynx, trachea and hynoidbone in the following terms:
    In case of strangulation by hand fracture of
    that larynx and trachea is not necessary to be
    occurred and the distinction between hanging
    and strangulation and the general tendencies of
    hanging and strangulation are given.
  53. He further states according to him, in the case of
    throttling by hand, fracture of the larynx and trachea
    cannot occur. It occurs in strangulation. He deposed
    37
    that by using hand and blunt object like stone and stick,
    if strangulation is caused, in that case fracture of the
    larynx, trachea and hyoidbone have been found also. We
    have noticed that throttling is constriction produced by
    pressure of fingers and palm upon throat. In ligature
    strangulation it can be either by leg or by any other means.
    Mugging is when strangulation is brought about with the
    foot, knee, bend of elbow or some other solid substances.
    The deposition of the medical officer is not inconsistent
    with the distinction between throttling and strangulation.
    In this case the choice is between finding death by hanging
    or by throttling. We have noticed that among the injuries,
    Injury No.3 in paragraph 20 is thyroid cartilage is crushed
    laterally on both side on left side. The further injury
    which is noted is cricoid cartilage and it is also crushed
    on both side. P.W. 1 doctor has deposed that Injury No.2
    and 3 in paragraph 20, namely, both sternomastoid muscle
    being crushed and severe haemorrhage being present beneath
    it and Injury No.3 thyroid cartilage being crushed
    literally on both sides on left side are only noticed in
    38
    the case of homicidal death. He has further deposed that
    these are marks of violence and they cannot be noticed in
    the case of hanging and suicidal death. We have already
    noticed that injury to the muscle of the neck, is only rarely
    found in the case of hanging whereas injury to the muscle
    of the neck is common in strangulation and that the
    sternomastoid muscle is indeed a muscle of the neck.
  54. One of the contentions of the appellant is if there is
    a case of throttling or any other form of strangulation,
    the victim would undoubtedly resist. The resistance would
    produce struggling and there would be marking of nail on
    the neck and face. P.W. 1 has indeed deposed that he has
    not seen nail marks and scratches of nail marks on the face
    and the neck of the deceased. In the work by Modi,
    scratches, abrasion fingernail and bruises on the face,
    neck and other parts of the body are usually present in the
    case of strangulation. P.W. 1 would however, state that
    these types of marks used to be present in the case of
    throttling but it is not necessary to be present. He also
    39
    further says that bruising is itself indicate, it is reddish
    brown colour.
  55. Having considered the conclusion in the post-mortem
    and the deposition of medical officer and analysed in the
    light of the principles laid down in the work Modi’s Medical
    Jurisprudence and Toxicology, let us also appreciate the
    other evidence on record.
  56. Both the courts have noted from the spot panchnama that
    the height of the room was just 5 ft. 10 inches. A
    conclusion has been reached that the theory of hanging is
    incompatible by a person of normal height or even if the
    height is 5 ft. We see no reason to take a different view
    in this regard. This also strengthens the case of the
    prosecution based on findings in the post-mortem and the
    deposition of the medical officer.
  57. There is a case for the appellant that it was the
    appellant who took the deceased to the hospital. This is
    40
    true but the further inference sought to be drawn by the
    appellant that it means that the appellant was innocent and
    had he not been innocent he would have not brought the body
    of the deceased to the hospital, is not true. Having regard
    to the other evidence which we have already discussed
    pointing it to be a case of strangulation or rather
    throttling, apparently the appellant sought to build up a
    case of the deceased dying as a result of hanging. In fact,
    in his questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he does not
    specifically set up a case of hanging as such. He states
    in answer to question No.42 that all witnesses are speaking
    lie against us due to teaching of his father-in-law and
    Sunnabee (P.W.4). In answer to question No.45 which was,
    do you want to say anything else about the case, he says
    it is a false case.
  58. There remains the contention of the appellant that
    since the prosecution has set up a specific case and the
    said charge was under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC
    on the basis that appellant along with accused Nos.2 to 4
    41
    together had committed the crime and once the High Court
    has acquitted accused No.2 to 4, it is not open to the High
    Court to convict the appellant under Section 302 IPC on the
    basis that the crime was committed by only him and therefore
    he was entitled to an acquittal.
  59. In Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra3, four
    accused were charged for the murder of one Vishwanath. The
    prosecution case inter alia was that there was a grudge
    against Vishwa Nath as he had helped Deoram Maruti Patil
    in getting acquittal in a murder case where relatives of
    the four accused were murdered. The four accused were
    charged under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
    They were all separately charged under Section 302 IPC.
    The Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused. The State
    preferred an appeal to the High Court against acquittal
    under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. No appeal was
    preferred against the order of acquittal under Section 302
    IPC. The High Court dismissed the appeal against accused
    3 AIR 1963 SC 1413
    42
    1,3 and 4. The High court, however, convicted the 2nd
    accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. It is
    in this appeal by the 2nd accused that this Court proceeded
    to consider various situations which may arise and
    thereafter proceeded to held as follows:
    “8. But the present case falls outside the
    said three illustrations. The High Court
    gave conflicting findings. While it
    acquitted Accused 1, 3 and 4 under Section
    302, read with Section 34 of the Indian
    Penal Code, it convicted Accused 2 under
    Section 302, read with Section 34, of the
    said Code, for having committed the offence
    jointly with the acquitted persons. That is
    a legally impossible position. When
    accused were acquitted either on the ground
    that the evidence was not acceptable or by
    giving benefit of doubt to them, the result
    in law would be the same: it would mean that
    they did not take part in the offence. The
    effect of the acquittal of Accused 1, 3 and
    4 is that they did not conjointly act with
    Accused 2 in committing the murder. If they
    did not act conjointly with Accused 2,
    Accused 2 could not have acted conjointly
    with them. Realizing this mutually
    destructive findings of the High Court,
    learned counsel for the State attempted to
    sustain the finding of the High Court by
    persuading us to hold that if the said
    finding was read in the context of the whole
    judgment, it would be clear that the
    43
    learned Judges meant to hold that persons
    other than the acquitted accused
    conjointly acted with the convicted
    accused. We have gone through the entire
    judgment carefully with the learned
    counsel. But the observations of the
    learned Judges as regards the “other
    participants” in the crime must in the
    context refer only to the “one or other of
    that said three acquitted accused
    participated in the offer he committed by
    Accused 2”. There is not a single
    observation in the judgment to indicate
    that persons other than the said accused
    participated in the offence, nor is there
    any evidence in that regard. We, therefore,
    hold that the judgment of the High Court
    cannot stand. We are satisfied that on the
    findings arrived at by the High Court, the
    conviction of Accused 2 is clearly wrong.”
  60. In similar vein is the view taken in the judgment of
    this Court in Sawal Das v. State of Bihar4 wherein the
    appellant, his father and his step mother were accused of
    committing an offence charged under Section 302
    simpliciter. The appellant, his father, driver and 8
    others were charged under Section 201 IPC. The appellant’s
    step mother was charged under Section 302 read with Section
    109 IPC. Though the trial Court convicted the appellant,
    4 1974 (4) SCC 193
    44
    his father and step mother under Section 302 read with
    Section 34 IPC which was the amended charge by the trial
    Court, the High court acquitted the appellant, his father
    and step mother under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC
    but instead found the appellant guilty under Section 302
    simpliciter. This is besides finding him guilty under
    Section 201 IPC but without separate sentence against the
    appellant. This Court considered the circumstantial
    evidence. It referred to the judgment of this Court in
    Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra(supra) and
    held as follows:
    “14. Mr. Mulla, appearing for the
    appellant, has also drawn our attention
    to K.G. Patil v. State of Maharashtra [AIR
    1963 SC 1413] . This Court held there that,
    when two out of three accused persons, each
    having been charged under Section 302 read
    with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, were
    acquitted, it must be assumed that the two
    acquitted persons did not participate in
    the commission of the offence at all. It is
    contended that the natural result of this
    view is that the particular act of the
    individual accused which brought about the
    death of the murdered person must be
    established beyond doubt before he is
    45
    singly and separately convicted under
    Section 302, Indian Penal Code
    simpliciter.”
    But it is relevant to notice paragraph 17 and 18 of the
    judgment and the same read as under:
    “17. We think that, upon the facts of this
    case, there could be a reasonable doubt as
    to whether Section 34 IPC could be applied
    to convict any of the three accused persons
    of murder. After excluding the application
    of Section 34 IPC to the case, the evidence
    does not also appear to us to prove
    conclusively that the appellant must have
    either throttled the deceased or done some
    other act, quite apart from the acts of his
    father and step-mother, which brought
    about the death. This result follows from
    the totality of evidence and the
    presumption from the non-production of
    Geeta Kurmini which destroys the value of
    the evidence, which weighed so much with
    the High Court, that the appellant was
    doing something like pushing or taking the
    murdered woman inside her room at the time
    when she was last seen alive.
    “18. The trial court and the High Court,
    relying on the evidence of some bleeding of
    the body of the deceased, admitted by the
    appellant to have been carried in the car
    to the burning ghat, and the absence of
    evidence of death caused by burning, came
    to the conclusion that the appellant must
    46
    have throttled the deceased. This was pure
    conjecture after eliminating the defence
    case of burning by accident. If it had been
    a case of throttling only, it would be
    difficult to explain the cries of murdered
    woman for help which were heard by
    witnesses on the road unless we assume that
    the murdered woman cried out, as she may
    have done, before the hands which choked
    her were placed on her throat. Therefore,
    although we may hold, as we do, that this
    must be a case of murder, it is not possible
    for us to find conclusively that it was a
    case of throttling and of nothing else or
    that the person who could have throttled or
    done some other act which actually killed
    the deceased was the appellant and not his
    father or stepmother.”
    (emphasis supplied)
  61. In Sukhram case (supra) two accused persons were
    convicted by the trial Court under Section 302 read
    with Section 34 IPC and under Section 436 read with
    Section 34 IPC. The High Court acquitted one of them
    giving him the benefit of doubt. It is found that
    though the co-accused and the appellant were
    individually charged under Sections 302 and 436 IPC
    47
    and alternatively under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC
    and Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC, the latter
    was found acceptable to the Sessions Judge. The
    co-accused was acquitted on the ground of benefit of
    doubt. In such circumstances, since this was a case
    where the co-accused was a named person and was
    acquitted, the appellant could not be said to have
    acted conjointly with anyone in the commission of the
    offence. The court also noticed infirmities and
    contradictions in the evidence.
  62. It is clear the evidence in this case clearly supports
    the case of throttling. As far as the motive is concerned,
    there is the evidence of P.W.4 that a few days prior to the
    date of incident appellant had visited her and told her
    about not being given the half tola gold and money. She
    also deposed about being told by the appellant that result
    of non-compliance with his demands would be that he would
    kill his wife. P.W.3 has also spoken of the threat as
    conveyed by P.W.4. This has been believed in by two courts.
    48
  63. Another circumstances which is found by the High Court
    is that, as is natural, the appellant and his wife had a
    separate room, therefore, there was a custodial death in
    which the appellant alone has been implicated. The death
    is found to have taken place somewhere around 3.30 in the
    morning. The finding by the High Court is that by that time
    the appellant would be with his wife. This cannot be
    described as manifestly erroneous.
  64. As far as the contention of the appellant that the date
    of incident is 10.3.2005 but post mortem note shows date
    25.8.2005, P.W.1 says that it is not true that he issued
    Post-mortem note on 25.8.2005. He further says that it is
    his say that PM Note was already prepared and one doctor
    was not available to sign it and therefore after signing
    it was issued. He further says, it is not true to say that
    he has prepared the PM note on 25.8.2005.
    49
  65. The post-mortem note indicates time of receipt of the
    body as 3.15 p.m. on 10.3.2005. The post mortem is stated
    to have begun at 3.30 p.m. on 10.3.2005 and ended at 4.45
    p.m. on 10.3.2005. It is stated to be done by P.W.1 medical
    officer and by one another, namely, Dr. A.I. Syed. The date
    is shown as 25.8.2005 on the post mortem note. This
    apparently, is in tune with the deposition of P.W.1 that
    other doctor was not available. At the same time, we notice
    that on said date 10.3.2005, there is a provisional death
    certificate which has been issued, according to P.W.1 him,
    to the police immediately. It is in the handwriting of
    Dr. syed. He deposes that he and Dr. Syed have both signed
    on it and the contents are true and correct. It is marked
    as Exh.23. In his cross it is deposed by him that according
    to him police machinery immediately demands provisional
    death certificate and when the cause of death is known after
    post-mortem they immediately issued the provisional death
    certificate. It can be understood as follows:
    50
    Apparently, the post-mortem was conducted. They came
    to the conclusion that the cause of death was as noted
    in the provisional death certificate and so issued the
    same. The detailed contents of the post-mortem were
    thereafter entered. No doubt, there is some gap, that
    is from 10.03.2005 to 25.08.2005 but this is on the
    basis that one doctor was not available to sign it.
  66. It is inter alia certified by the two doctors in the
    provisional death certificate that they have done the post
    mortem on the body of Mrs. Sultana Javed Sheikh, 20 years
    of age on 10.3.2005 and the probable cause of death seems
    to be acute cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to acute
    asphyxia, secondary to throttling. The said certificate
    is dated 10.03.2005. There is the date, 25.08.2005 on the
    Post Mortem report. Also, the date 10.03.2005 is shown
    against the Column-forwarded to the Police Sub Inspector,
    Naldurg. But the reason appears to be that though Post
    Mortem was conducted on 10.03.2005, it was signed by the
    doctor on 25.08.2005. Though it could be argued that the
    51
    reason for the date 25.08.2005 is that one of the doctors
    was not available but however, on 10.03.2005, in the
    provisional death certificate how could both the doctors
    have signed. It would appear from the report that Dr. A.I.
    Syed is the Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Jalkot
    and it is his non availability after the content were
    entered in the Post Mortem report that led to report being
    delayed. Though there is a gap, we find assurance from the
    fact that the provisional death certificate which is marked
    as Exh.E-23 and which is dated 10.03.2005 corroborates E-22
    Post Mortem.
  67. As far as the injuries in the Inquest report not being
    noticed in the post-mortem report is concerned, there can
    no doubt that the medical doctor knows exactly what medical
    injuries are and ordinarily in case of inconsistency, the
    medical report of the doctor should prevail. Having regard
    to the post mortem and the evidence of P.W.1, the nature
    of injuries noticed as explained by the deposition of P.W.1
    unerringly point to the death being caused by throttling
    as opined by the doctor. Much may not turn on the injuries
    52
    which are alleged to have been noted in the Inquest not being
    noted in the post mortem note.
  68. We see no merit in the appeal. The appeal is
    dismissed. As appellant has been released on bail, the
    bail bonds are cancelled and appellant be taken into custody
    to serve out the remaining sentence.
    …………………………………………………J.
    [SNAJAY KISHAN KAUL]
    …………………………………………………J.
    [K.M. JOSEPH]
    NEW DELHI
    NOVEMBER 06, 2019