IMPORTANT POINT
In a case where the ocular testimony appears to be suspect the existence or absence of motive acquires some significance regarding the probability of the prosecution case.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Murder-Deceased met a violent death-Eye witnesses were chance witnesses-Unnatural conduct of eye witnesses-Eye witnesses stated that deceased fell down after running some distance, appellant sat on his body and pressed his neck and strangulated him to death-No mark of injury found on neck of deceased by doctor-Failure to establish motive-Conduct of witnesses is such that it renders case of prosecution doubtful or incredible-Their presence at place of occurrence as eye witnesses is suspect-Mere fact that witnesses are consistent in what they say is not acceptable for any other reason-Delay in receipt of FIR by Magistrate-Facts and circumstances creating a serious doubt about complicity of appellant-Deceased had many enemies-He may have been murdered by any one of them-Appellant acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.
       Held : The first striking feature of the case is the highly unnatural conduct of the alleged eye witnesses. It is really surprising that having witnessed a ghastly occurrence all the three started running from the place of occurrence and kept on running till they reached village Achhroni at about 8 p.m. It is difficult to believe that they ran for 2-1/2 hours to cover a distance of about a mile. (Para 17)
       The medical evidence on record discloses that there was no blackening and charring of the skin around the wounds. However, the categoric assertion of PW-4 is that the appellant placed his gun on the back of the deceased and fired. If there was blackening and charring of the wounds, the medical officer would have certainly noticed that fact. But on the contrary, he has clearly stated that he has not noticed that there was blackening or charring of the skin around the wounds. This makes it doubtful if PW-4 had really seen the occurrence and was correctly narrating the manner of occurrence. The same can be said about PW-5 also. Of course PW-6 tried to salvage the situation by stating that the appellant fired on the back of the deceased from very near but he had not put the gun on the back. At the time of firing the barrel of the gun was about 4-5 feet away from the back of the deceased, but this is inconsistent with the testimony of the other eye witnesses. (Para 18)
       There was no motive for the appellant to kill the deceased. Even though existence of motive loses significance when there is reliable ocular testimony, in a case where the ocular testimony appears to be suspect the existence or absence of motive acquires some significance regarding the probability of the prosecution case. In this case the brother of the deceased, PW-7 clearly stated that even though there was some dispute between the appellant and the deceased three years before the occurrence, that dispute was amicably settled and the disputed land was shared half and half by them. Thereafter they continued to cultivate their respective plots of land peacefully and no untoward incident took place whatsoever. We must, therefore, hold that the prosecution has failed to establish any motive for the offence. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-In this appeal by special leave the sole appellant has impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench dated 15.7.2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1987 affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri under Section 302 I.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 128 of 1986. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27th September, 1986 the appellant shot dead Bhamra @ Bhamar Singh in the presence of Ram Swarup Sharma, PW-4, a Forest Officer, Basheer Khan, PW-5 and Laxman, PW-6, forest guards, when they were proceeding from village Kachnaria to Achhroni. The three witnesses above named ran from the place of occurrence to save their lives and thereafter boarded a bus at Achhroni and came to Police Station Banmore Kalan at a distance of about 16 Kilometres from the place of occurrence where report was lodged by PW-4 at 2315 hours. In the said report it was stated that PW-4 along with PWs 5 and 6 was proceeding to his Head Quarters at Achhroni from Kachnaria. They were patrolling the forest area. At village Kachnaria they met the appellant and deceased Bhamra. They accompanied them and came to village Bandala, the village of the appellant, where he provided them drinking water etc.. Thereafter they proceeded towards Achhroni. The deceased accompanied them stating that he was going to his home via Khazra, and the appellant, who was carrying his country made single barrel gun, came with them to see them off. The deceased Bhamra was walking in front of the others followed by appellant Badam Singh behind whom was Basheer Khan, PW-5 and then Laxman Singh, PW-6. The informant, PW-4 was behind all of them with his bicycle. When they came near the pond and were proceeding on the pagdandi, the appellant suddenly pointed his gun at Bhamra and fired. Thereafter he turned back and run threatening that no one should run away. After running about 100 steps behind them he started reloading his gun. Bhamra, who was injured also ran but was chased by the appellant Badam Singh. The witnesses ran towards Achhroni in order to save their lives, but while running away they noticed that appellant Badam Singh had caught hold of Bhamra, who was injured on the left shoulder from behind and was bleeding. The appellant caught hold of Bhamra, sat over him, and killed him.

3. On the basis of the report investigation was taken up and ultimately the appellant was put up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Shivpuri charged of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.

4. The prosecution examined the three eye witnesses namely PWs-4, 5 and 6 in support of its case. It also examined some other witnesses to prove the motive for the offence as also the events that took place before the occurrence. Before adverting to the evidence of the eye witnesses we may notice the testimony of some such witnesses. PW-7, Shivraj Singh was the elder brother of deceased Bhamra. He stated that Bhamra was an agriculturist cultivating his land for the last 15 years. Three years back there was a dispute between Bhamra and the appellant since the appellant trespassed of the plot of land belonging to the deceased. There was a quarrel between them and they assaulted each other. But thereafter the matter was amicably settled without any litigation and they compromised the dispute by dividing the plot half and half. Thereafter, they continued to cultivate their respective plots. There was never any dispute thereafter between them. Both of them used to go to their respective plots and carry on agricultural operations. Four days before the occurrence the appellant had come to his village Naya gaon where his sister was married. There was a dinner arranged by Khumana, Vikram and Narayan on that night. Next day the appellant returned home. One day before the occurrence Khumana, Vikram and Narayan told his brother Bhamra that he had been cal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1089

IMPORTANT POINTIn a case where the ocular testimony appears to be suspect the existence or absence of motive acquires some significance regarding the probability of the prosecution case.

IMPORTANT POINT
In a case where the ocular testimony appears to be suspect the existence or absence of motive acquires some significance regarding the probability of the prosecution case.