Judgment

IYER, J.:- The appellant, convicted of murder of Satya Devi, a young woman and her child, Surjit Kumar, by throwing a handgrenade into the house of Mohinder Pal, P. W. 7, husband of the deceased lady, was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge. On appeal, the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the High Court. Of course, he has also been convicted for offences under Sections 325 and for causing injuries to Mohinder Pal aforesaid and a few others.

2. The substance of the prosecution case is that P. W. 7 was a grocer and cultivator. The accused was a neighbouring cultivator and had a dispute over the boundary between the two fields with P. W. 7. A quarrel had arisen on this score between the two and this led to grudge borne by the accused against P. W. 7. It is further alleged, as motive [or the offence, that the accused used to buy grocery from P. W. 7 s shop on credit but that the former defaulted to pay and when pressed, picked up a quarrel. These dual motives by themselves are not serious enough for the commission of a grave crime but who knows the psychic sensitiveness of individuals ? Both the courts below have held the motives true and we see no reason to disagree with them. Of course, merely because there is some grudge or pique proved we cannot hold the accused guilty. That question has to be decided by the pressure of probabilities and direct evidence to the extent of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Now to the actual incident. It is alleged that on August 21,1971, P. W. 7, his wife and children and his aunt, P W. 8, were talking to each other from the courtyard of their house, seated on cots. There was a lamp burning, hung from a wall of the courtyard. As they were chatting, P. W. 7 turned towards the lantern to light a cigarette and his eyes landed on the accused standing in the lane nearby. Immediately the latter threw a handgrenade into the court-yard and ran away. The explosion which followed sprayed splinters which struck the persons present there. In consequence, two persons, the wife and child of P. W. 7, died on the spot and others, including P. W. 7 received injuries. The Sarpanch of the village P. W.6, who was living closely, came to the scene, found two persons dead and a number of others with injuries. He proceeded to the Police Station for lodging a First Information Report but could not cross the river at night as it was in floods. The next day he lodged the First Information Report before the police at 2 p. m., Exh. PK. Investigation commenced and the accused was charge-sheeted for various offences, the gravest of which was under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The accused denied his guilt totally but produced no evidence in defence. Even so the prosecution has to prove its case satisfactorily, the silence of the accused being of no consequence in this context.

4. It has been held by the courts below that the death of the two persons and the injuries to a number of others were caused by the handgrenade thrown by the accused. Shri O. P. Rana appearing as amicus curiae has challenged the findings as totally untenable and built upon surmises and flimsy evidence Indeed his persuasive presentation initially induced some hesitancy in our minds but on a closer consideration of the evidence we are not inclined to disturb the holding by the High Court and the Sessions Court that the accused was responsible for the murder and the other lesser offences.

5. The trumpcard used by Shri Rana was that there was a fatal omission in the First Information, laid a day after the occurrence, to mention the name of the accused. On the other hand Exh. PK, the First Information Report, mentions as the miscreant some unknown man . Had there been no satisfactory explanation for this serious omission we might have been inclined to doubt the veracity of the prosecution. The point made by Shri Rana is that P. W. 7 claims to have seen the assailant and shouted that the bomb was thrown by Bishan Bishan, Tara Bera Gark