RAVIRALA LAXMAIAH versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2013] 6 S.C.R. 511 · Decided: 28-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 6 S.C.R. 511 
RAVIRALA LAXMAIAH 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2038 of 2011) 
MAY 28, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
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 -
Conviction of appellant accordingly upheld. 
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation - Held: 
F 
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 
A 
B 
512 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 6 S.C.R. 
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. 
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 f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.