1. The appellant-accused has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment passed by the High Court whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by the trial court. The trial court convicted the appellant for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment, for having committed murder of his wife viz., Laxmi @ Lalitha.

2. At this stage, the questions of motive, intention, etc., are not of much consequence. Indeed, the arguments have not been advanced on that aspect by learned counsel for both sides. The main question for our consideration is whether the deceased Laxmi @ Lalitha who was found hanging by a plastic rope, died due to homicide or suicide. Obviously, the appellant can be found guilty only if death is caused due to homicidal hanging. The body of the deceased Laxmi @ Lalitha was found hanging from a high beam by a plastic rope. There were two ligature marks on the neck of the deceased – one was horizontal on the Hyoid bone and the other higher up, where the knot went up along the side of the ear. This ligature mark was at an angle. There were no other injuries on the body of the deceased at all, not even bruises marks caused by forcible manhandling which occur if a person is to be forcibly hanged unless a person is drugged. There were no signs of struggle near the place where the victim was hanged. Indeed, in our view, the absence of any sign of struggle is significant in the present case if we are to hold that this is a case of homicidal hanging.

3. There is a possibility that there would be no signs of struggle if the victim is first rendered unconscious, then strangulated and thereafter, hanged; but despite repeated examination of the evidence, we find no such sign. Hence, there is no evidence that the victim was first rendered unconscious. This could have only been done by a blow on the head or due to intoxication or by some drugs or by some other equally effected means. There is no evidence of any means which may have been employed to make the victim unconscious first.

4. It is suggested by Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State that the victim may have been first rendered unconscious and then strangulated in bed. This seems to us highly improbable nay almost impossible. If the appellant had to slip the plastic rope under the victim's neck while she was sleeping and then to begin strangulation, there is no doubt that the woman would get up and literally fight for her life.

5. Much stress was laid by the prosecution on the existence of two ligature marks and the evidence of the doctor who suggested that the ligature mark around the neck of the deceased near the hyoid bone was ante-mortem and the higher ligature mark below her chin was post-mortem. Apparently, there was no cross-examination of the doctor on this point at all. We say this because it is possible that there are more ligature marks than one depending on the turn of ligature around the neck.

6. It is not possible to infer strangulation merely because of two ligature marks. We say this due to the absence of any mark of struggle or violence on the body or in/around the place the body was found hanging. There is a serious doubt if the appellant or anyone else for that matter could have managed to strangulate an adult woman and then hang her without any struggle. Such cases normally occur with the help of a companion. There is no evidence to that effect.

7. In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, it is observed as follows :

“Homicidal hanging, though rare, has been recorded. Usually, more than one person is involved in the act, unless the victim is a child or very weak and feeble, or is rendered unconscious by some intoxicating or narcotic drug. In a case, where resistance has been offered, marks of violence on the body and marks of a struggle or footprints of several persons at or near the place of the occurrence are likely to be found.”

None of the well known signs referred to by the learned author are present in this case.

8. The question whether the appellant murdered the victim viz., Laxmi @ Lalitha, cannot be answered definitively. Therefore, the benefit of doubt that has arisen in the present case, must go to the appellant.

9. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the judgments and orders passed by the High Court as also the trial court are set aside, and consequently, the appellant is acquitted of the charge of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. Presently, by this Court's order dated 01.10.2009, the appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged and he shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.