RAVIRALA LAXMAIAHversusSTATE OF A.P.

                     [2013] 6 S.C.R. 511


                    RAVIRALA LAXMAIAH                             A
                               v.
                       STATE OF A.P.
             (Criminal Appeal No. 2038 of 2011)
                        MAY 28, 2013
                                                                  B
      [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

      Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 & 404 - Homicidal death by
·strangulation - Conviction of appellant for killing his wife -
 Propriety - Held: Appellant had been doubting the character C
 of his wife and therefore, had adequate motive to eliminate
 her - In spite of the fact that he had been in the same room,
 he failed to furnish any explanation as under what
 circumstances his wife was found dead - Particularly, in view
 of the fact that the courts below excluded the theory of suicide D
 - Same conclusion stands fully fortified by the fact that the
 saree of deceased was lying in the comer of the room and
 the version given by the appellant that he had found his wife
 hanging with a saree around her neck and he cut the same
 by knife stands fully falsified as in such a fact-situation, part E
 of the saree should have been found hanging with the ceiling
 of the room - Conduct of the appellant that· he had given a
 false information to his in-laws and while dead body was lying.
 in his house he stayed in a Guest House; and further that he
 had absconded from the city itself, suggest that he is guilty -
                                                                   F
 Conviction of appellant accordingly upheld.

     Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation - Held:
Jn a case based on circumstantial evidence, where no eye-
witness's account is available, when an incriminating
circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused           G
either offers no explanation for the same, or offers an
explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same
becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to
make it complete.
                              511                                 H
    512      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2013] 6 S.C.R.


A        Evidence - Last seen theory - Duty of the accused to give
    explanation -Held: In cases where the accused has been seen
    with the deceased victim (last seen theory}, it becomes the
    duty of the accused to explain the circumstances under which
    the death of the victim has occurred.
B
          Evidence - Medical evidence - Strangulation - Proof of.

       The prosecution case was that the appellant had
  killed his wife by strangulation. The appellant had been
  with the deceased at the time of her death. The
C deceased'& nose and ears were viciously cut, and all her
  gold ornaments and anklets had been stolen. On the
  basis of the disclosure statement made by the appellant,
  the ornaments of the deceased had been recovered in the
  presence of two panch witnesses, namely, PW.8 and
D PW.9. The trial court rejected the defence plea that the
  deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself at
  their residence, and convicted the appellant under
  Sections 302 and 404 of IPC and sentenced him to
  undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The conviction
E and sentence was upheld by the High Court, and
  therefore the present appeal.

          Dismi$sing the appeal, the Court

       HELDt 1. PW.8 and PW.9 do not support the
F recoveries of the ornaments. However, they have
  admitted t~ their signature/thumb impression(s) being
  present on the recovery memos. PW.2 is a circumstantial
  witness, and has deposed that being a neighbour of the
  couple, he was fully aware of the fact that the appellant
G had in fact ill-treated his wife, and that quarrels often
  arose between them. The deceased would cry a lot. PW3,
  the paternal uncle of deceased deposed that he had taken
  the deceased and her sister alongwith him from
  Hyderabad, and the same had become an issue with
H respect to which the appellant would quarrel bitterly with
       RAVIRALA LAXMAIAH v. STATE OF A.P.                513


the deceased, as he doubted her character and he                A
presumed that PW.3 had taken her alone from Hyderabad.
Thus, it is indirectly suggested that owing to the
suspicious mind of the appellant, he had believed that
there had existed a questionable relationship between
the deceased and PW.3. [Paras 6, 7 & 8] [519-G-H; 520-          B
A-DJ

     2. Existence of a fracture on the hyoid bone leads to
a conclusive proof of strangulation. The postmortem has
revealed that the fracture of the hyoid bone is
characterised by the absence of hemorrhage in the C
tissues around the fracture. Modi's Medical Jurisprudence
and Toxicology states that, "hyoid bone and superior
cornuae of the thyroid cartilage are not, as a rule,
fractured by any other means other than by
strangulation", although the larynx and the trachea may, D
in rare cases, be fractured 'as a result of a fall. PW.1
(father of the deceased) deposed that the sari of the
deceased had been thrown into a corner of the room, and
that it had not been cut into two pieces as was suggested
by the appellant accused. The appellant had suggested E
that he had cut the sari with a knife, and had let the dead
body of his wife onto the floor. An observation of the
scene of the offence does not indicate that the remaining
piece of sari had been found on the ceiling, and the
prosecution has established the other facts regarding F
them last being seen and living together. The case
against the appellant stands fully proved, and the theory
that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging
herself, is a false plea taken by the appellant, which in
itself is an additional link connecting the appellant to the G
commission of offence. [Para 11] [522-B-G]

    Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2008 SC 2110:
2008 (6) SCR 303 - relied on.
                          9
    3. It is a settled legal proposition that in a case based   H
   514      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A on circ11mstantial evidence, where no eye-witness's
  account is available, the principle is that when an
  incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the
  said accused either offers no explanation for the same,
  or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then
B the same becomes an additional link in the chain of
  circumstances to make it complete. In cases where the
  accused has been seen with the deceased victim (last
  seen theory), it becomes the duty of the accused to
  explain the circumstances under which the death of the
c victim has occurred. [Paras 15, 17] [527-A-B, F]
         Stat~ of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC
  2045: 1992 (2) SCR 815; Gui.ab Chand v. State of M.P. AIR
  1995 SC 1598: 1995 (3) SCR 27; State of Tamil Nadu v.
  Rajendran AIR 1999 SC 3535: 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 89;
D State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471: 1999 (5)
  Suppl. SCR 215; Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1
  SCC 731: 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 619; Neel Kumar@ Anil
  Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 5 SCC 766: 2012 (5) SCR
  696; Nika Ram v. The State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1972
E SC 2077: 1973 (1) SCR 428; Ganesh/al v. State of
  Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106: 1992 (2) SCR 502; Trimukh
  Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681:
  2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 156 and Prithipal Singh & Ors. v. State
  of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 10: 2012 (14) SCR 862 -
F relied on.

        4. The appellant had been doubting the character of
  his wife ·and therefore, had adequate motive to eliminate
  her. In spite of the fact that he had been in the same room,
G he failed to furnish any explanation as under what
  circumstances his wife was found dead. Particularly, in
  view of the fact that the courts below had excluded the
  theory ~f suicide. The same conclusion stands fully
  fortified by the fact that the saree of deceased was lying
H In the corner of the room and the version given by the
       RAVIRALA LAXMAIAH v. STATE OF A.P.                 515

appellant that he had found his wife hanging with a saree        A
around her neck and he cut the same by knife stands
fully falsified as in such a fact-situation, part of the saree
should have been found hanging with the ceiling of the
room. The conduct of the appellant that he had given a
false information to his in-laws and while dead body was         B
lying in his house he stayed in a Guest House; further
that he had absconded from the city itself, suggest that
he is guilty of the offence. [Para 19] [528-D-F]
                     Case Law Reference:
                                                                 c
    2008 (6) SCR 303                relied on      Para 12
    1992 (2) SCR 815                relied on      Para 15
    1995 (3) SCR 27                 relied on      Para 15
                                                                 D
    1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 89          relied on      Para 15
    1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 215         relied on      Para 15
    2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 619         relied on      Para 15
    2012 (5) SCR 696                relied on      Para 16       E
    1973 (1) SCR 428                relied on      Para 17
    1992 (2) SCR 502                relied on      Para 17
    2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 156         relied on      Para 18       F
    2012 (14) SCR 862               relied on      Para 18
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 2038 of 2011.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 13.07.2010 of the          G
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal
No. 302 of 2007.

     Dr. Aman Hingorani, Swati Sumbly, Suveni Banerjee for
the Appellant.                                                   H
    516        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A       Gagandeep Sharma, D. Mahesh Babu for the
    Respondent.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been
B preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.7.2010,
  passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
  Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 2007, concurring with the judgment
  and order dated 5.2.2007 of the Is! Additional Sessions Judge,
  Mahabubnagar, Andhra Pradesh, in Sessions Case No. 83 of
C 2006, whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty
  of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 404 of the
  Indian Penal Code~ 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'),
  and was $en!enced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
  and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of which,
D simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section
  302 IPC; and for the offence punishable under Section 404 IPC,
  rigorous irtlprisonment for a period of three years, was imposed
  on him. However, both the sentences were directed to run
  concurrently.
E           2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are
    that:

        A. B!lllamani (deceased) was the second wife of the
  appellant. Their marriage was solemnized in 2002, for which
F her father had given dowry of Rs.20,000/-, gold earrings, a ring
  and silver anklets etc. Appellant became suspicious of the
  fidelity of his wife, and began to beat her up at times. The
  deceased went to live in the house of her parents because of
  the ill-trealment meted out to her by the appellant. However,
G upon the advice of the elders in her family, she decided to go
  back to the appellant. The appellant and the deceased were
  taken by G. Balaiah (PW.3), the paternal uncle of deceased to
  Hyderaba<ll, and there he was engaged in coolie work. Here
  too, the appellant and Balamani (deceased) would often quarrel,
H and the appellant would beat her. They eventually returned to
        RAVIRALA LAXMAIAH v. STATE OF A.P.                     517
              [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
their village, and 15 days prior to the said incident, the appellan\   A
had taken Balamani (deceased) to Srisailam and here they had
worked at Eagalapenta, attending to the petty works in and
around the colony for some time. D.V. Subbaiah (PW.2), a
neighbour, had seen the appellant and the deceased
quarrelling, and as a result thereof, had also noticed Balamani        B
(deceased) weeping.

     B. On 12.7.2003, Dasu Krishnaiah (PW.1), father of the
deceased, received a telephone call from the appellant, wherein
he was informed that Balamani was suffering from a severe              C
stomach ache. The next day, the appellant again made a call
to the neighbours of Dasu Krishnaiah (PW.1) and asked them
to give a message to Dasu Krishnaiah (PW.1), asking him to
come to Eagalapenta. However, Dasu Krishnaiah (PW.1) was
unable to reach there. The next day, at about 10.30 A.M., the
appellant telephonically informed Dasu Krishnaiah (PW.1) that          D
Balamani had committed suicide. Dasu Krishnaiah (PW.1)
immediately rushed by jeep, alongwith his family. On the way,
they met the appellant at Santa Bazar at Achampet. The
appellant then informed them that Balamani had committed
suicide by hanging herself in the 'G' Type Labour Quarters,            E
Near the Krishna Guest House, Eagalapenta. Even on being
requested by Dasu Krishnaiah (PW.1), the appellant refused
to accompany them and instead, escaped from there. The
family of Balamani (deceased) had thereafter reached the 'G'
type quarters, and here they found that the dead body of               F
Balamani (deceased) was smelling, and that from it, blood was
flowing out of the house over its threshold. The dead body of
the deceased was lying on the floor, and two granite stones lay
near the head of the dead body. There were tears on certain
parts of the body of deceased, which clearly indicated that there      G
had been attempts made to forcibly snatch off her gold
ornaments.

     C. Dasu Krishnaiah (PW.1) filed an FIR regarding the
incident on 15.7.2003, alleging that the appellant had killed
                                                                       H
    518      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A   Balamani on the night of 12.7.2003, by strangulation. Her nose
    and ears were viciously cut, and all her gold ornaments and
    anklets had been stolen.

       D. The police had recovered the dead body of Balamani,
  and had i;iot the autopsy performed upon it. The appellant had
8
  been absconding, and thus could be arrested only on
  15.7.200l On the basis of the disclosure statement that was
  made by the appellant, the ornaments of Balamani, deceased,
  had been recovered in the presence of two panch witnesses,
  namely, Ganjai Niranjan (PW.8) and Syed Aktharali (PW.9).
C After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed
  on 28.10.2005. Charges were framed on 17.8.2006 against
  the appellant, for the offences punishable under Sections 302
  and 404 IPC.

D        E. After the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional
    Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant vide
    impugned judgment and order dated 5.2.2007, as has been
    referred to hereinabove.

E         F. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the
    High Court, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and
    order dated 13.7.2010.

          Henqe, this appeal.

F       3. Dr. Aman Hingorani, learned counsel appearing for the
  appellant has submitted, that the present case was one of
  suicide by hanging, and that the same most certainly did not
  involve homicide by strangulation, as it is evident from the post-
  mortem report, as well as from the deposition of Dr. K.
G Padmavathi (PW.10), both of which clearly suggest, that death
  had been caused as a result of suicide by hanging. Even
  otherwis1e, there exist serious discrepancies and
  inconsistencies in the depositions of the witnesses. There was
  no motive whatsoever, for the appellant to commit the murder
H of his wife. All the recoveries are fake, and the material objects,
       RAVIRALA LAXMAIAH v. STATE OF A.P.                  519
             [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
particularly jewellery and other items have been planted by the A
police to falsely implicate the appellant in the case; as recovery·
witnesses of the jewellery, particularly Ganjai Niranjan (PW.8)
and Syed Aktharali (PW.9), do not support the recovery of the
aforementioned items. The mere appearance and admission
of their signature/thumb impression on the memo of recovery, B
does not prove the recovery. Thus, the appeal deserves to be
allowed.

     4. Per contra, Shri Gagandeep Sharma, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent, has opposed the appeal,
contending that opinion of Dr. Padmavathi (PW.10) could not       C
be a piece of conclusive evidence. It is not necessary that the
medical report, as well as the deposition of Dr. K. Padmavathi
(PW.10) suggest the theory of suicide by hanging, and not of
homicidal death by strangulation. The inconsistencies in the
depositions of the witnesses are minor, and the same natural,     D
as the evidence of the said witnesses was recorded after the
lapse of a long period from the date of incident. The appellant
had doubted the fidelity of his wife, and had therefore nursed
a grudge when she had gone alongwith her paternal uncle G.
Balaiah (PW.3) alone. However, she had been taken by G.           E
Balaiah (PW.3) alongwith her sister. The concurrent findings of
fact recorded by the courts below do not warrant any
interference. The appeal lacks merit and is thus, liable to be
dismissed.
                                                                  F
     5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.

     6. The Trial Court has appreciated the evidence of all the
witnesses, including medical evidence.
                                                                  G
     So far as the recoveries are concerned, undoubtedly,
Ganjai Niranjan (PW.8) and Syed Aktharali (PW.9), do not
support the recoveries of the ornaments. However, they have
admitted to their signature/thumb impression(s) being present
on the recovery memos.                 ·                          H
    520      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 6 S.C.R.


A        7. D.V. Subbaiah (PW.2) is a circumstantial witness, and
    has deposed that being a neighbour of the couple referred to
    herein, he was fully aware of the fact that the appellant had in
    fact ill-treated his wife, and that there quarrels often arose
    between them. The deceased Balamani would cry a lot.
B
       8. G. Balaiah (PW.3), the paternal uncle of deceased has
  deposed that he had taken the deceased and her sister
  alongwith him from Hyderabad, and the same had become an
  issue with respect to which the appellant would quarrel bitterly
  with the deceased Balamani, as he doubted her character and
C he presumed that G. Balaiah (PW.3) had taken her alone from
  Hyderabad. Thus, it is indirectly suggested that owing to the
  suspiciou$ mind of the appellant, he had believed that there had
  existed a questionable relationship between the deceased and
  G. Balaiah (PW.3).
D
        9. The Trial Court, after considering the entire evidence on
    record has recorded the following findings:

          (i) The conduct of the appellant towards his wife was not
          cordial, and there existed adequate material on record to
E
          prove that the accused had in fact been beating and
          harassing his wife intentionally.

          (ii) The evidence on record conclusively proves that the
          appellant had a deep rooted motive to somehow eliminate
F         his wife, and the reason for this was the suspicion he had
          with respect to her character, particularly after she had
          travelled with G. Balaiah (PW.3) alone (in his opinion),
          from Hyderabad to Bommanapally.

          (iii) The recovery witnesses Ganjai Niranjan (PW.8) and
G
          Syed Aktharali (PW.9) particularly as regards the recovery
          of the jewellery of the deceased, do not support the case
          of the prosecution, but they have admitted to their
          signature/thumb impression(s) appearing on the
          panch'nama Ext.P-4.
H
       RAVIRALA LAXMAIAH v. STATE OF A.P.                   521
             [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

    (iv) Indisputably, the panchnama Ext.P-4 is in relation to     A
    material objects 1 to 3, i.e. in relation to the ornaments
    belonging to the deceased Balamani.

    (v) The appellant has not offered any explanation as
    regards the gold ornaments of his wife being in his            8
    possession. He had been fully aware of the death of his
    wife from the very beginning.

    (vi) The appellant had been in the company of his wife at
    the time of her death, and had been last seen with her. It
    is not the case of the appellant that any other person could   C
    have come and committed the crime.

    (vii) The evidence on record fully excludes the theory of
    suicide, and establishes the cause of death as homicidal.
                                                                   D
    (viii) The appellant had been giving misleading information
    to Dasu Krishnaiah (PW.1 ), the father of the deceased.

    (ix) The appellant had stayed in a guest house, leaving the
    dead body of his deceased wife lying in the house, and
    had subsequently, after meeting the family members of the      E
    deceased, absconded, and could only be apprehended
    after several days.

    (x) Any inconsistencies, embellishments or discrepancies
    in the evidence are minor, and do not go to the root of the
                                                                   F
    case.

     10. The High Court has re-appreciated the entire evidence
on record, and has concurred with the conclusions arrived at
by the Trial Court, observing as under:
                                                                   G
     That the appellant had been with the deceased at the time
of her death. He had furnished false information to the family
members of the deceased, and the recovery of the jewellery of
the deceased from the house of the accused had been made
at his behest. The defence put forward by the appellant stating    H
    522      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 6 S.C.R.


/.\ that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself
    at their residence, was not acceptable. The tears present on
    the body of the deceased indicated the forcible snatching of
    her ornaments.

B       11. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, the High
  Court has dealt with the opinion of Dr. K. Padmava'hi (PW.10),
  who has referred to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and
  Toxicology, wherein it has been stated that, "hyoid bone and
  superior cornuae of the thyroid cartilage are not, as a rule,
C fractured by any other means other than by strangulation",
  although the larynx and the trachea may, in rare cases, be
  fractured as a result of a fall. The postmortem has revealed that     _
  the fracture of the hyoid bone is characterised by the absence
  of hemorthage in the tissues around the fracture.

D      Furthermore, the High Court has dealt with the factual
  matrix of the case and has relied upon the statement of Dasu
  Krishnaiah (PW.1), who has deposed that the sari of the
  deceased had been thrown into a corner of the room, and that
  it had not been cut into two pieces as was suggested by the
E appellant accused. The appellant has suggested that he had
  cut the sari with a knife, and had let the dead body of his wife
  onto the floor. As an observation of the scene of the offence
  does not indicate that the remaining piece of sari had been
  found on the ceiling, and the prosecution has established the
F other facls regarding them last being seen and living together.
  The case against the appellant stands fully proved, and the
  theory that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging
  herself, i$ a false plea taken by the appellant, which in itself is
  an additional link connecting the appellant to the commission
G of offen~.
         12. $0 far as the medical evidence is concerned, the issue
    involved herein is no more res integra.

      This Court dealt with the issue in Ponnusamy v. State of
H Tamil Nadu, AIR 2008 SC 2110, and observed as under:
  RAVIRALA LAXMAIAH v. STATE OF A.P.                      523
        [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
"20-21. It is true that the autopsy surgeon, PW 17, did not      A
find any fracture on the hyoid bone. Existence of such a
fracture leads to a conclusive proof of strangulation but
absence thereof does not prove contra. In Taylor's
Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, 13th
Edn., pp. 307-08, it is stated:                                  B

'The hyoid bone is 'U' shaped and composed of five parts:
the body, two greater and two lesser horns. It is relatively
protected, lying at the root of the tongue where the body
is difficult to feel. The greater horn, which can be felt more   C
easily, lies behind the front part of the strip muscles
(sternomastoid), 3 cm below the angle of the lower jaw and
1.5 cm from the midline. The bone ossifies from six
centres, a pair for the body and one for each horn. The
greater horns are, in early life, connected to the body by
cartilage but after middle life they are usually united by       D
bone. The lesser horns are situated close to the junction
of the greater horns in the body. They are connected to the
body of the bone by fibrous tissue and occasionally to the
greater horns by synovial joints which usually persist
throughout life but occasionally become ankylosed.               E

       Our own findings suggest that although the hardening
of the bone is related to age there can be considerable
variation and elderly people sometimes show only slight
ossification.                                                    F

      From the above consideration of the anatomy it will
be appreciated that while injuries to the body are unlikely,
a grip high up on the neck may readily produce fractures
of the greater horns. Sometimes it would appear that the
local pressure from the thumb causes a fracture on one           G
side only.

      While the amount of force in manual strangulation
would often appear to be greatly in excess of that required
to cause death, the application of such force, as evidenced      H
    524      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A         by extensive external and soft tissue injuries, make it
          unus1Jal to find fractures of the hyoid bone in a person under
          the age of 40 years.

                As stated, even in older people in which ossification
          is incomplete, considerable violence may leave this bone
B
          intact. This view is confirmed by Green. He gives
          interesting figures: in 34 cases of manual strangulation the
          hyoid was fractured in 12 (35%) as compared with the
          classic paper of Gonzales who reported four fractures in
          24 cqses. The figures in strangulation by ligature show that
c         the percentage of hyoid fractures was 13. Our own figures
          are similar to those of Green.'

                 22. In Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 41 under
          the title - Fracture of the Hyoid Bone in Strangulation:
D         Comparison of Fractured and Unfractured Hyoids from
          Victims of Strangulation, it is stated:

          'The hyoid is the U-shaped bone of the neck that is
          fractured in one-third of all homicides by strangulation. On
          this basis, post-mortem detection of hyoid fracture is
E
          rele11ant to the diagnosis of strangulation. However, since
          many cases lack a hyoid fracture, the absence of this
          finding does not exclude strangulation as a cause of death.
          The reasons why some hyoids fracture and others do not
          may relate to the nature and magnitude of force applied
F         to the neck, age of the victim, nature of the instrument
          (ligature or hands) used to strangle, and intrinsic anatomic
          featl!res of the hyoid bone. We compared the case profiles
          and xeroradiographic appearance of the hyoids of 20
          victims of homicidal strangulation with and without hyoid
G         fracil.lre (n = 10, each). The fractured hyoids occurred in
          older victims of strangulation (39 ± 14 years) when
          compared to the victims with unfractured hyoids (30 ± 10
          years). The age dependency of hyoid fracture correlated
          with the degree of ossification or fusion of the hyoid
H
       RAVIRALA LAXMAIAH v. STATE OF A.P.                     525
             [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
    synchondroses. The hyoid was fused in older victims of            A
    strangulation (41 ± 12 years) whereas the unfused hyoids
    were found in the younger victims (28 ± 10 years). In
    addition, the hyoid bone was ossified or fused in 70% of
    all fractured hyoids, but, only 30% of the unfractured hyoids
    were fused. The shape of the hyoid bone was also found            8
    to differentiate fractured and unfractured hyoids. Fractured
    hyoids were longer in the anterior-posterior plane and were
    more steeply sloping when compared with unfractured
    hyoids. These data indicate that hyoids of strangulation
    victims, with and without fracture, are distinguished by          c
    various indices of shape and rigidity. On this basis, it may
    be possible to exp)ain why some victims of strangulation
    do not have fractured hyoid bones.'

    23. Mr Rangaramanujam, however, relied upon Modi's
Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Edn. at p. 584             D
wherein a difference between hanging and strangulation has
been stated. Our attention in this connection has been drawn
to Point 12 which reads as under:

     Hanging                    Strangulation                         E

    Fracture of the             Fracture of the larynx
    larynx and trachea-         and trachea -
    Very rare and that          Often found also hyoid bone
    too in judicial hanging
                                                                      F
      24. A bare perusal of the opinion of the learned author by
itself does not lead to the conclusion that fracture of hyoid bone,
is a must in all the cases."

     13. Dr. Aman Hingorani has submitted that in the present         G
case, the post mortem report is completely silent about the
ligature mark and its characteristics, as a result of which it
cannot be said that the present case was one of homicidal
strangulation/throttling as alleged by the prosecution. Dr.
                                                                      H
    526       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A Hingorani has placed a very heavy reliance on Modi's Medical
  Jurisprudence and Toxicology wherein after emphasizing that
  "hyoid bane and superior cornuae of the thyroid cartilage are
  not, as a rule, fractured by any other means other than by
  strangulation", has given the differences between hanging and
B strangulation in tabulated form, two of them being as follows:

          Hanging                Strangulation

          Ligature Mark -       Ligature Mark -
          Oblique,     non-
c         c on tin u o us       Horizontal or.
          placed high up in     transverse continuous,
          the neck between      round the neck, low
          the chin and the      down in the neck
          larynx, the base      below the thyroid, the
D         of the groove of      base of the groove or
          furr@w being hard,    furrow being soft and
          yellow        and     reddish
          parchment like       Scratches, abrasions
          Scratches,           and bruises on the
E                              face, neck and other
          abnasions and
          bruises on the       parts of the body -
          face, neck and
          other parts of the
          body-                 Usually not present
F
          Usually not
          present

       14. However, in view of the binding decision referred to
G hereinabove, we concur with the reasoning that has been given
  by the Trial Court, as well as by the High Court and are not in
  a position to accept the submissions made by Dr. Aman
  Hingorani.


H
       RAVIRALA LAXMAIAH v. STATE OF A.P.                    527
             [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
     15. It is a settled legal proposition that in a case based      A
on circumstantial evidence, where no eye-witness's account is
available, the principle is that when an incriminating
circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either
offers no explanation for the same, or offers an explanation
which is found to be uritrue, then the same becomes an               B
additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete.
(Vide: State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, AIR 1992
SC 2045; Guiab Chand v. State of M.P., AIR 1995 SC 1598;
State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran, AIR 1999 SC 3535; State
of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471; and Ganesh               c
Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 731).

    16. In Neel Kumar@ Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana,
(2012) 5 SCC 766, this Court observed :

    "30. It is the duty of the accused to explain the D
    incriminating circumstance proved against him while·
    making a statement under Section 313 CrPC. Keeping
    silent and not furnishing any explanation for such
    circumstance is an additional link in the chain of
    circumstances to sustain the charges against him. E
    Recovery of incriminating material at his disclosure
    statement duly proved is a very positive circumstance
    against him. (See also: Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of
    Uttaranchal, AIR 2010 SC 773)"

     17. In cases where the accused has been seen with the           F
deceased victim (last seen theory), it becomes the duty of the
accused to explain the circumstances under which the death
of the victim has occurred. (Vide: Nika Ram v. The State of
Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2077; Ganesh/al v. State
of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106; and Ponnusamy (supra).             G

    18. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra,
(2006) 10 SCC 681, this Court held as under:

     "Where an accused is alleged to have committed the              H
    528      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 6 S.C.R.

A         murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading
          evidence to show that shortly before the commission of
          crime they were seen together or the offence takes place
          in the dwelling home where the husband also normally
          resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused
B         does not offer any explanation how the wife received
          injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false,
          it is iii strong circumstance which indicates that he is
          responsible for commission of the crime."

          (See' also: Prithipal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab &
c Anr., (20112) 1 sec 10)
       19. lln view of the above discussion, we reach the
  inescapable conclusion that appellant had been doubting the
  character of his wife and therefore, had adequate motive to
D eliminate Iler. In spite of the fact that he had been in the same
  room, he failed to furnish any explanation as under what
  circumstances his wife was found dead. Particularly, in view of
  the fact thi;it the courts below had excluded the theory of suicide.
  The same conclusion stands fully fortified by the fact that the
E saree of deceased was lying in the corner of the room and the
  version given by the appellant that he had found his wife
  hanging with a saree around her neck and he cut the same by
  knife stands fully falsified as in such a fact-situation, part of the
  saree should have been found hanging with the ceiling of the
F room. The conduct of the appellant that he had given a false
  information to his in-laws and while dead body was lying in his
  house he stayed in a Krishna Guest House; further that he had
  absconded from the city itself, suggest that he is guilty of the
  offence.

G        20. In view of the above, we do not find any cogent reason
    to interfere with the judgments and orders of the courts below.
    The appeal lacks merit, and is accordingly dismissed.

    B.B.B.                                        Appeal dismissed.
H