Misreading of medical and motive evidence rendered acquittal unsustainable; conviction for throttling before burning was restored.

An acquittal was held unsustainable where the appellate court ignored credible evidence of cruelty and persistent demands for money, and wrongly discarded witness testimony on minor variations in the amount demanded. The medical evidence, including a fractured hyoid bone and the absence of carbon particles in the trachea and bronchus, supported death by asphyxia due to throttling before burning. The court found that the evidence had been selectively read and material parts of the doctor's opinion were overlooked, including the mistaken assumption that a ligature mark was necessary to prove strangulation. The Trial Court conviction was restored and the remaining sentence directed to be undergone.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the High Court could be interfered with on the ground that it ignored reliable evidence of motive and harassment, and misread the medical evidence showing that the deceased had died of throttling before the burning.

Analysis: The evidence of multiple witnesses consistently established that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and persistent demands for money, and the supposed variations in the amount demanded did not undermine the substance of the prosecution case. The absence of witnesses from the matrimonial locality was not a valid reason to discard otherwise credible testimony. On the medical evidence, the fracture of the hyoid bone and the absence of carbon particles in the trachea and bronchus supported the conclusion that death had occurred by asphyxia due to throttling before the body was burnt. The High Court was found to have selectively read the medical testimony, overlooked material parts of the doctor's opinion, and treated the case as if a ligature mark or rope was necessary to prove strangulation.

Conclusion: The acquittal was unsustainable because the High Court's view was perverse and based on misreading and ignoring material evidence. The conviction recorded by the Trial Court was restored and the respondent was directed to undergo the remaining sentence.

---