Mishra Vs. Kuntala Mishra & Anr  INSC 1322 (24 October 1996)
Ray, B.L. Hansaria G.N. Ray. J.
this appeal the order of acquittal in favour of the accused Kuntala Mishra, by
the judgment dated October 1, 1996 passed by the High Court of Orissa in
Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 1984, setting aside the conviction of the said
accused under Section 302 I.P.C. by the judgment dated December 17, 1984 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalour in Sessions Trial No. 46 of 1984 and
consequential sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the accused is under
prosecution case in short is that the deceased Geeta was the daughter-in-law of
the accused Kuntala Mishra.
accused was a midwife (Dhai) in the Maternity Hospital at Sambalour. When negotiation of
marriage of the deceased with Subhas, son of the accused, had taken place, a
sum of Rs. 8000/- was demanded as dowry by the accused and her brother Satyaprasad.
Though the father and brother of Geeta initially did not agree to pay the said
sum because of their financial hardship, they however, agreed to pay the said
amount on the date of marriage i.e. on May 24, 1981. The parents, however, could not
pay the said sum at the time of marriage and the party accompanying the
bridegroom i.e. husband of Geeta on protest did not participate in the dinner
hosted on the occasion of marriage and they returned unhappy. For such non
payment of the said dowry, Geeta was harassed by the accused and her son and
was physically assaulted. The accused did not allow Geeta to come to her
parents place despite repeated requests by the parents to send their daughter.
The father of Geeta ultimately borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,000/- and came to Sambalour
where Geeta was living in the quarter allotted to the accused close to the
Maternity Hospital with her husband and the mother-in-law and paid the sum of Rs.
6,000/- to the accused in the presence of the husband of the deceased Geeta.
The accused had accepted such part payment with reluctance but even then she
did not accede to the request of the father of Geeta to send her daughter with
him and the father had to go back alone.
the temporary absence of Subhas, the accused on January 11, 1983 took Geeta to
the Maternity Hospital for D and C operation as Geeta was not having
conception. After the operation, Geeta was brought to the quarter of the
accused at about 11.30
A.M. on the said day,
it is the prosecution that while the deceased was still in drowsy condition
because of hid sedation, she was strangulated to death by the accused with the
help of the string of the petticoat of the deceased. The accused, however,
pleaded innocence and in her statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure
Code. She state that Geeta had committed suicide with the string of her
petticoat (say). It may stated here that the accused herself lodged a diary at
3.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence in the Sambalour Town Police Station that
after the said D and C operation, both Geeta and the accused had been taking
rest in the quarter of the accused and when the accused woke up from a sleep at
2.30 p.m., she noticed that Geeta had committed suicide by self strangulation
with the aid of the string of her petticoat.
Officer-in-charge of Sambalpur Town Police Station registered a case and
directed police Sub-Inspector (p.w.12) to enquire into the said incident of
death. Later on PW.13
Circle Inspector of
Police took charge of the investigation and finding that it was a case of
murder, an F.I.R. under Section 302 I.P.C. was drawn up (Ext. 27).
completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the accused faced
trial for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. in the said Sessions Trial No.
46 of 1984 before the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur.
Sub-inspector of Police who first conducted investigation came to the place of
occurrence at 3.55 p.m. and prepared a site plan (Ext.9) and seized the string
of petticoat (M.O.I.) and a silver necklace (M.O.11) lying on the floor near a
leg of the cot below the head of the deceased. The bed head ticket (Ext. 15)
and the temperature chart (Ext.10) of the deceased were seized from the
hospital. The medical prescriptions Ext. 10 to 10/5, the pathological reports
(Ext. 11 to 11/4) and other medical reports of the deceased (Ext. 12 to 14)
were also seized.
the Demonstrator in Forensic Medicine and Toxicology of the Medical College Burla,
held post mortem examination on the dead body of Geeta on January 12, 1983 at
1.35 P.M. in the said report of the said doctor, five external injuries as
indicated were found on the person of the deceased which were ante mortem and
the third ligature mark indicated in the report could be caused by encircling
the neck by means of the string of a petticoat (M.O.I) by pulling the ends. The
doctor also opined that injuries Nos. IV and V could be caused by finger nails
and first blows. On dissection of the neck below the ligature mark, the doctor
found the skin contused. The doctor opined that death was due to cerebral
anoxia as a result of strangulation of neck.
doctor categorically opined that the death was not due to hanging.
be stated here that on alarm being raised by the accused at about 2.30 p.m. two
lady doctors of the Maternity Hospital (PW.6 and 7) reached the place of occurrence
in the quarter of the accused., P.W. 7 was first to reach. She has stated that
while she was working in the hospital, she heard some noise coming from the
quarter. She then rushed and found coming from the quarter. She then rushed and
found Geeta lying on the cot in the bed room dead. She has deposed that she had
noticed some marks on the front side of the neck of Geeta. The other doctor PW.6
who also came on hearing noise, found Geeta lying dead on the cot and her body
was covered from neck to toe by a sheet. She had also noticed tow marks of
bruise on the front side of the neck of Geeta and P.W.6 has deposed that when
the said sheet was removed, it was found that Geeta was wearing petticoat (saya),
blouse and saree which were intact and not disorganised.
the charmacist of the hospital has deposed to the effect that he had given 50
mg. phenargan intra muscular injection to Geeta at about 8.00 to 8.30 A.M. for
the purpose of D and C operation and, after such operation, Geeta was
discharged from the hospital at 11.30 A.M. on the same day. The lady doctor
(PW.7) has also deposed that the accused wanted to take Geeta after the
operation to the quarter but she was advised to take Geeta after some time.
doctor (PW.12) has deposed that the effect of 50 mg.
intra muscular injection which was given to Geeta would keep a patient drowsy
for 6 to 7 hours and such patient could be overpowered very easily. PW, 11 has
also deposed that a patient under the influence of phenargan could not commit suicide
by self strangulation, he has also deposed that D and C operation is conducted
at a point of time when the patient completely looses her senses. It has come
out in the evidence that the operation had been performed at 1.30. A.M. on the
deceased. The lady doctor PW7 has also deposed that the accused had taken Geeta
to her quarter at about 11.30
A.M. and after five
minutes she came to the hospital and took some medicine and went away. There
is, however, no evidence as to what medicine was taken away by the accused. It
may also be indicated here that both the lady doctors PWs. 6 and 7 have deposed
that when after hearing the noise they came to the room in the quarter of the
accused where the deceased was found lying dead on the cot, both of them had
noticed that the door at the back of the room was found closed from inside.
was, however, contended before the learned Session Judge on behalf of the
accused that as the blood vessels of the artery of the trachea and larynx and
the trachea was not found affected by the doctor holding post-mortem
examination, it could not be held with any certainty that suicide by self
strangulation had not been committed. Such contention was made by referring to
some observations in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. It was also
urged that the conduct of the accused only suggested of her innocence and not
suffering from any guilty complex. The accused did not make any attempt to
suppress the unnatural death. On the contrary, immediately on noticing the
daughter -in-law lying strangulated, she raised alarm and the doctors came to
her quarter and examined the deceased. She also rushed to the police station
and gave a diary containing the information of suicidal death of her
daughter-in-law at 3.30
learned Sessions Judge, however, held that although it was a case of
circumstantial evidence, the circumstances clearly proved by convincing
evidence, established the guilt of the accused in committing the murder of the
deceased Geeta by strangulating her. The learned Sessions Judge has indicated
that the deceased was harassed on account of non- payment of dowry as demanded
and she was not allowed to visit her parents house for non payment of dowry
amount for which she had written a number of letters to her parents disclosing
such facts. On the date of incident, the deceased had undergone D and C
operation at about 10.30
A.M. for which 50 mg. Phenargan
intra muscular injection was given.
effect of such amount of phenargan in the intra-muscular injection was to last
for 5 to 6 hours and according to doctor's deposition, a patient on being given
intra muscular injection of 50 mg. of phenargan, would not be in a position to
commit suicide by self strangulation even after 3-6 hours by applying
sufficient force necessary for committing suicide. There was no one present in
the room excepting the accused when Geeta met her death and if the case of self
strangulation was ruled out, it was the accused and on one else who could
strangulate the deceased. The Sessions Judge also pointed out that it came out
in evidence that immediately after the operation, the accused wanted to take
the deceased to her quarter, but on doctor's advice not take her immediately
from the hospital, she had taken the deceased to her quarter at 11.30 A.M. When
the lady doctors PWs. 6 and 7 on hearing alarm raised by the accused went other
quarter, they had noticed the deceased lying on a cot inside the room with a
sheet covering her body. One of the lady doctor deposed that on removing the
sheet, she found the deceased wearing petticoat, saree and blouse without being
disarrayed and disorganised.
learned Sessions Judge also pointed out that according to Modi's Medical
Jurisprudence and Toxicology, suicide by self strangulation is very rare and
without a contrivance, with which sufficient pressure required to bring about
death can be generated, suicide by self strangulation, can not be performed
because after application of some force, there would be insensitivity thereby
loosening the grip on the neck. As in this case, no contrivance with which such
self strangulation could have been committed was found, the case of suicide by
self strangulation was ruled out. Accordingly, the homicidal death of the
deceased by strangulation by the accused was the only possibility in the facts
of the case. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, convicted the accused for
the offence of murder and sentenced her to imprisonment for life.
Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 1984 was preferred by the accused against her
conviction and sentence before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the
High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused
by the learned Sessions Judge and acquitted her by giving benefit of doubt. In
setting aside the conviction and sentence of the accused, the High Court has
indicated the following aspects of the case :-
PW.11 holding post mortem examination of the deceased did not notice the larynx
and trachea affected as well as injury in the neck muscle. He also did not find
hyoid bone fractured but found congestion in the deed structure of throat. If
suicide by self strangulation with the help of some contrivance is committed,
then according to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, injuries on deep
structure of the neck muscles are, as a rule absent.
The deceased was administered operation intra muscular injection at about 8.00 to 8.30
A.M. According to PW.6
the doctor who conducted D and C operation, the effect or phenargon injection
remains for 3 to 4 hours. Other doctor PW.11 who held post mortem examination
also stated that with 50 mg. phenargan injection, the effect of such injection
would be maximum after three hours and would vanish after six hours and the
patient would remain drowsy for 4 to 6 hours .
From the evidence PW.11 the approximate time of death of Geeta was 1.30. to
2.00 P.M. on January 11. 1983.
There is no convincing evidence that the deceased was oppressed or tortured in
her in-law's house. From the letters written by the deceased, since exhibited
in the case, though it was revealed that Geeta remained unhappy for not paying
dowry amount but the letters did not disclose any extraordinary ill feeling
between Geeta and her mother-in- law.
The conduct of the accused vis-a-vis the deceased showed her anxiety for the
well being of the deceased. It was revealed from the evidence both oral and
documentary that the accused was getting the deceased regularly treated for
The fact that the accused was alone with the deceased at the time of her death
has not been convincingly proved.
the doctor (PW.7) who came to the quarter of the accused after hearing noise
from the quarter has deposed that the door of the room having entry in the back
side was closed from inside, such fact was not stated 161 Criminal Procedure
Code. The other doctor (PW.6) reached after PW.7 and she also did not state to
the police that the said door was closed from inside. The investigating officer
also did not enquire from the doctors as to whether the door was closed from
inside, possibility of entry by a third person through such back door cannot be
ruled out. Hence, there in no conclusive proof that the accused was alone with
the deceased in the house.
The theory of last seen together is not of universal application and may not
always of sufficient to sustain a conviction unless supported by other links in
the chain of circumstances.
The conduct of the accused as being restless and perplexed at the time of the
incident was quite natural because it is not unusual to be restless and
perplexed if the daughter-in-law suddenly dies.
was not a fact that the deceased was covered by a sheet from head to toe by the
accused. PW.7 the doctor who first saw the deceased did not say that the
deceased was so covered from head to toe. P.W.6 is even more specific and said
the deceased was covered by a sheet from neck to toe.
There was nothing unusual or improper for the accused to take the deceased to
her quarter at 11.30
a.m. when the operation
which was a minor operation and was completed at 10.30 A.M. After waiting upto 11.30 a.m., the deceased was taken to the quarter which was only 20 to 30 cubits
away from the hospital.
There was nothing improper in reporting by the accused to the police that the
deceased had committed suicide because she entertained the belief that the
deceased had committed suicide and P.W.s6 and 7 did not contradict the accused
that the deceased had not committed suicide.
High Court having held that from the facts and to hold that the accused had
committed the murder of the deceased. Hence, she was acquitted by giving her
benefit of doubt.
hearing of the appeal, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the accused-respondent,
has forcefully contended that conviction on the basis, of circumstantial
evidence cannot be based unless the circumstances clearly proved and
established by reliable and convincing evidence adduced in the case, make a
complete chain of events from which no other inference, except the inference
about the complicity of the accused in committing the offence, is possible.
Kumar has submitted that it has been clearly established from the materials on
record that love between the accused and her daughter-in-law , namely the
deceased was not lost. On the contrary, the accused was taking care to get her
daughter-in-law regularly checked up and treated for gynecological problems.
There was some bitterness for non payment of agreed amount of dowry but for
such non payment, the deceased was not harassed or tortured. The High Court
after considering the letters written by the deceased to her parents has held
that despite unhappiness of the accused for not paying the agreed amount of
dowry, there is nothing in the letters to suggest that the deceased was
tortured or assaulted or not allowed to go her parents house.
Kumar has submitted that the motive of the accused for murdering the deceased
has not been established in this case. In a case of direct evidence, absence of
motive on the face of clinching evidences against the accused, may lose its
importance but in a case of circumstantial evidence it has great importance.
Even if it is assumed that the accused was not satisfied on receipt of the
substantial part of the dowry amount and had insisted for further payment, it
cannot be safely presumed that she had been harbouring ill feeling to such an
extent which had impelled her to murder the daughter-in-law.
Kumar has also submitted that the intra muscular injection of 50 mg. phenargan
was given to the deceased at 8.00 to 8.30 A.M. According to the doctor holding post mortem, the
approximate time of death was 1.30 p.m. The
accused has state that at 2.30 p.m. when
she got up from sleep she had noticed her daughter-in-law lying dead. From the
evidences adduced, it is quite evident that about 5 to 5 1/2 hours elapsed
between the time when injection was given to the deceased and time of her
death. The effect of such phenargan injection completely vanishes within 5 to 6
there is no difficulty in holding that at the time of committing suicide, the
deceased was free from the effect of phenargan injection and was physically
capable of committing suicide by self strangulation.
Kumar has submitted that even though suicide by self strangulation is uncommon,
there are instances of such suicide, Mr. Kumar has further submitted that PW.11
the doctor holding post-mortem examination has deposed that he had noticed
injuries on the deep structure of the neck muscles. Such injury, according to Modi's
Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, will be absent as a rule in the case of
suicide by self strangulation. The opinion contained in Modi's Medical
Jurisprudence and Toxicology is always regarded as of high authoritative value.
At least, such presence of injuries on deep structure of neck muscle raises
reasonable doubt as to whether death was due to homicidal strangulation by
someone or suicide by self strangulation and the benefit of doubt should go to
the accused. The High Court has, therefore, rightly given such benefit of doubt
in favour of the accused.
Kumar has contended that unless the possibility of suicide by self
strangulation is ruled out and possibility of someone entering the house
through the back door is ruled out, the accused cannot be held account of
suicide by self strangulation out is was a case of murder by strangulation.
Kumar has contended that whether the back door was closed from inside or not
ought to have investigated by the police. Such important fact about the actual
position of the back door could not have been missed to be stated by the
doctors, P.W.s 6 and 7, to the police. At least, the police should have put
questions to ascertain the position of the back door to the said witnesses at
the time of their examination under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code.
of such investigation by the police, coupled with the fact that no such
statement about the position of the back door was made by P.W.6 and 7 to the
police, raises serious doubt as to the actual position of the back door. It is
not unlikely that the doctors failed to notice such fact and it a later date
when they deposed in the case, a wrong statement was made by the doctors
because of lapse of memory with the passage of time. Precisely for such reason,
the High Court has entertained doubt about the actual position of the back door
at the time of commission of the offence.
Kumar has submitted that the accused had not suppressed the factum of death
even for some time and to attempt to conceal proof of the incident of murder.
On the contrary, being impelled by the normal reaction of a loving
mother-in-law, she raised alarm immediately, on noticing her daughter-in-law,
she raised alarm immediately, on noticing her daughter-in-law, she raised alarm
immediately, on noticing her daughter-in-law dead, and the doctors in the
Hospital rushed to her quarter and had occasions to examine the deceased. The
accused also promptly brought to the notice of the Sambalpur Town Police about
the said death of her daughter-in-law had committed suicide, such fact was
fairly stated to the police. Such conduct of the appellant has been even raise
any suspicion about the guilty complex of the accused. Mr. Kumar has submitted
that by indicating very cogent reasons by analyzing the evidences of the case
the High Court has acquitted the accused. Such order of acquittal, therefore,
should not be interfered with by this Court.
are, however, unable to accept the submissions of Mr. Kumar. We are also unable
to agree that the impugned order of acquittal passed by the High Court was
justified in the facts of the case. The letters written by the deceased, since
exhibited at the time of trial of the Sessions case, clearly reveal that the
deceased had suffered sufficient mental trauma for non payment of dowry amount
of Rs. 8,000/-. In her letter (Ext.17) written to the father, the deceased
clearly indicated that for non payment of the said demand for a sum of rs.
8,000/- at the time of marriage, she had to face many things in her in-law's
place and she would be happy if the amount was sent quickly. In another letter
dated 28.11.1982 written by the deceased to her brother Buda, she expressed
that nobody was knowing her misery and she did not know what to do. She only
knew now to suffer by getting pain in her hands and legs. In letter dated
5.9.1982 (Ext.17/4) written by the deceased to her mother, she stated that she
was trying to go to home but that was not welcome and effective. The mother
must have already heard about the mother-in-law how angry she was then. Her
husband had advised her to wait two to three months for going to her parents
house. The elder brother when came to her, assured that the rest of amount
would be paid within 2 to 3 months, but she was not aware as to what had
happened to such payment. The mother was requested to tell the father about
such payment, otherwise she would be treated badly. In another letter written
shortly before the death, on 26.12.1982 to her sister-in-law (Ext. 17/6), the
deceased wrote that nobody should blame anybody about the marriage affairs.
What had been written in her face that had happened. She had to hear so many
irony (presumably meaning words of taunts) in her in-law's place. The
sister-in-law would have known all these from mother, second brother and sister.
She also wrote that sister-in-law would not worry for the deceased but one
ought to try how the problem could be solved. Such letters, in our view,
clearly indicate that the deceased had suffered humiliations in the in-law's
house for non-payment of dowry amount and it was made clear that unless the
mother-in-law would be treated badly.
the evidence it has been clearly established that on the date of death, the
deceased had undergone D and C operation in the Maternity Hospital at 10.30
A.M. For such purpose between 8.00 to 8.30 A.M. she was given 50 mg.
injection (intra muscular). The C and D operation was performed at about 10.30
A.M. Although the accused intended to take away the deceased after the
operation to her quarter, she was advised not to take her immediately.
an hour after the operation, the accused had taken the deceased to her quarter.
There is evidence that shortly after taking the deceased to her quarter. The
accused came to hospital and took some medicine but there is nothing on record
to indicate what medicine had been taken by the accused. The trial court has
indicated that it was not unlikely that some sedatives had been taken by the
that as it may, it has been clearly proved that at about 2.30 p.m. the accused
raised alarm from her quarter. On hearing such alarm, the lady doctor of the
hospital (PW.7) had been to the quarter of the accused and found the deceased
lying on a cot in the room with sheet placed on her body. She examined the
deceased and found her dead.
P.W.6 another doctor also came and found that the deceased were wearing a
blouse, saree and petticoat without the string. None of the doctors noticed the
wearing apparel of the deceased disarranged or disorganised. Both the said doctors
categorically deposed that the back door of the room was closed from inside.
The High Court, in our view, has, without any basis, entertained doubt as to
whether at the time of death, the said back door was closed from inside or not
simply because the investigating officer did not cause enquiry about the
position of the back door and the doctors (PWs.6 and 7) had not stated in their
statements to the police under Section 161 Crl. Procedure Code that the door
was closed from inside. The omission to make statement to the police about the
position of the back door, when no enquiry about the same was made to the
doctors, is quite natural. Both the doctors are respectable and disinterested
witnesses. There is nothing on record to indicate that the back door was closed
from inside. Such evidence, in our view, should not have been discarded by the
High Court on an unacceptable reasoning.
been clearly established that if the quarter was closed from inside, there was
no possibility of any person entering the quarter. It was only the accused who
was staying in the quarter with the deceased who had undergone an operation
shortly before her death, because admittedly the husband was out of station for
a few days. Even if it is assumed that the effect of phenargan injection had
gone by 1.00 to 1.30 p.m., which according to the opinion of P.W.11, the doctor
holding post mortem examination, was the possible time of death, it can be
reasonably held that the deceased by that time was likely to be down and not
quite normal in view of the fact that she had been under deed sedation and had
also underwent an operation even if such operation was a minor one.
view, the case of committing suicide by self strangulation by the deceased must
be ruled out. Both in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology and in
Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, to which our
attention was drawn by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, it has been clearly indicated that
suicide by self strangulation is very rare. For committing suicide by self
strangulation, the person committing suicide must take aid of a contrivance so
as to ensure application of sufficient force until death by strangulation.
Without such contrivance, sufficient force cannot be applied because initially
with the application of force, insensitivity will develop for which the hands
pulling the ends of the string must get loosened. In the instant case, no
contrivance was noticed either by PWs. 6 and 7 who had come to examine the
deceased by hearing the alarm. The accused has also not seen any contrivance at
the place of incident and in her statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure
Code, she has not disclosed any fact, which was within her special knowledge,
in support of a case of suicide by self strangulation.
been deposed by the lady doctors (PWs.6 and 7) that the deceased was lying on a
cot with a sheet covering her. PW.6 has categorically stated that the sheet was
covering the body of the deceased from head to toe. On removing the sheet, she
had noticed that the deceased was wearing saree, blouse and petticoat and she
did not notice that such wearing apparel was disarrayed or disorganised. It is
not the case of the accused that after finding her daughter-in-law dead, she
had organised the dress of the deceased and then covered the dead body with a
sheet. If a person had committed suicide, she would not be found lying properly
dressed in a normal composure. There would be some movement of the body with
consequential change in the matter of placement of various limbs of the body on
instant case, it has been clearly established that the death occurred on
account of strangulation. Simply because the doctor (P.W.11) noticed injuries
on the deep muscle of the neck of the deceased at the time of holding post
mortem, it cannot be held that such injuries noticed by the doctor had
convincingly established that it was a case of death by self strangulation,
according to the learned author, is a rare incident. Such view has also been
expressed in Taylor's Principle and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence. It is
not unlikely that for want of large number of cases of suicide by strangulation
to be studied carefully, various features associated with such suicide could
not be indicated more precisely. That apart, opinions of expert, which though
deserve due consideration with respect, cannot be held absolutely conclusive
particularly, when other evidences clearly established give a contra
also a indicated here that both in Modi's book on medical jurisprudence and
Taylor's book on medical jurisprudence, it has been categorically stated that
for committing suicide by self strangulation, the aid of a contrivance to
maintain force till death is got to be taken, otherwise, it is not possible to
maintain the force required. The absence of such contrivance clearly rules out
any possibility of suicide by self strangulation. In the aforesaid fact,
excepting the accused no other person had any opportunity whatsoever to cause
the murder of the deceased. The circumstantial evidence in this case are
absolutely clinching in establishing the complicity of the accused in
committing the murder of the deceased. The view taken by the High Court is
clearly against the weight of the evidence and cannot be held to be a possible
view which could have been taken.
therefore, find no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order of acquittal
passed by the High Court and upholding the conviction and sentence passed
against the accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur. The bail bonds of
the accused would stand cancelled. She would be taken to custody forthwith to
serve out the sentence of imprisonment for life. The appeal is accordingly
we part, we place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance given
to the Court by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned counsel for the
accused-respondent appointed as amicus curatie. He fairly place all relevant
facts and depositions adduced in the case for our consideration.