- (1.) ON a sum total of the evidence as laid before the learned trial Judge it reveals that rabu Sekh married Malina Begum, daughter of Kalimuddin Sekh, de facto complainant. Malina was deaf and dumb. On the Astamangala day the couple visited Kalimuddins house on April 11, 1986. At night the couple went to bed after having dinner. At about 2:30 A. M. Kshudu Sekh, the brother of Malina raised hue and cry and drew attention of the inmates of the house and they found Malina in sitting position in the room where the couple had spent night. Malina was found in sitting position leaning against the wall and her sari was tied in her neck and the other end was tied with a bamboo bar fixed on the walls for the purpose of keeping clothes. The end which was tied with the bamboo bar was loose and the bamboo bar was about four feet from the floor excluding the possibility of hanging from there. She was taken to Kandi Hospital where she was declared dead. Rabu Sekh was arrested and was charged under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.
(2.) ON a detailed analysis it is found that the inmates more or less corroborated each other to the effect that they had seen the couple alive last time when they had gone to the room for sleeping after the dinner. At about 2:30 A. M. Rabu called Kshudu Sekh and informed him that Malina had been missing from the room. All the inmates came after being alarmed and found Malina in sitting position in the same room itself. She was found sitting leaning on the wall and stretching her legs. One end of her sari was tied with the neck and the other end fixed with the bamboo bar loosely and the bamboo bar was affixed on the wall just four feet from the floor. This would totally exclude the possibility of hanging from the said bamboo bar. The medical evidence suggests that death was due to throttling. There had been an extra judicial confession by Rabu that he had murdered Malina by throttling. Such extra judicial confession cannot, per se empower the Court to hold Rabu guilty of the offence unless there was corroboration which was found present in the case in hand. The learned trial Judge also considered the medical evidence where the Hyoid bone and laryngeal cartilages were found intact which was not possible in case of death caused due to hanging. The doctor, however, deposed that the death could have been caused by hanging being ante mortem and suicidal in nature. The doctor, however, in his evidence admitted that there had been nail marks on the neck of the deceased which would suggest resistance from the victim. The doctor also deposed that as the hyoid bone was intact the possibility of throttling could be excluded. This part of the evidence was disbelieved by the learned Judge and in our view very rightly, even if we accept the opinion of the doctor that since Hyoid bone was intact the possibility of throttling could be excluded. The same logic could apply in case of hanging as throttling could be possible by giving pressure from the front side avoiding fracture of the Hyoid bone which is not possible in case of hanging as the knot would not only block the laryngeal cartilages but also would fracture the Hyoid bone. In our view, since the Hyoid bone was intact the possibility of hanging must be first excluded before excluding the possibility of throttling.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended before us that a young boy marrying a girl just eight days before the incident, could not be accused of being involved in the incident unless there was definite reason proved for his involvement. No such evidence did come out during evidence. The learned counsel also contended that there was no eyewitness to the incident. The accused himself informed the inmates of the family about the incident of missing of the girl. As a natural consequence he would first try to escape and find out ways and means to destroy evidence rather than calling the inmates of the house. This argument does not impress us. When there is no eyewitness to hold someone guilty of the offence the Court must get unimpeachable evidence to come to a conclusion that there was a complete chain which would lead to the irresistible conclusion that it was the accused only who was involved in the crime and nobody else.;