Important point
Where complicity of accused in an offence of murder was proved by direct cogent evidence and other material evidence, motive would take back seat and would not be required to be proved.

Judgment

S.B. Sinha, J.—The Appellant herein with one Dilbagh Singh and Baljit Singh were tried and convicted for commission of offence of house breaking by night, to commit murder of Kans Kaur, for attempts on the lives of Joginder Singh and Avtar Singh and also for the illegal use of their fire arms. They were found guilty and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the murder of Kans Kaur and lesser sentences for the other offences. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Baljit Singh was married to Sukhwinder Kaur, daughter of Joginder Singh (PW-2) and Kans Kaur. Owing to alleged demand of dowry, Sukhwinder Kaur came back to her parents from her matrimonial home which gave rise to strained relationship between the parties. Baljit Singh tried to forcibly take away Sukhwinder Kaur on a few occasions but her parents did not permit her to go with him whereupon Panchayat intervened resulting in execution of a purported agreement of informal divorce.

3. The said Baljit Singh, Dilbagh Singh as also the Appellant herein were constables. All of them were deputed on patrol duty at a naka set up at Fatuwal, GT Road. Their duty hours were between 8 P.M. on 20th February, 1995 to 8 A.M. on 21st February, 1995. Nachhatarpal Singh (PW 14) was working as a helper in a vehicle bearing registration No. PB-08-4886. He along with the driver, Paramjit Singh of the said vehicle was on his way back to Jalandhar from Jandiala Guru after unloading paper. When the said vehicle reached Fatuwal, allegedly the accused stopped the same and asked the driver to take him and other accused persons to Kot Budha. Baljit Singh was armed with self-loading rifle and the Appellant and Dilbagh Singh were armed with .303 rifles. It is not in dispute that the said rifles were issued to the accused persons with ammunition. Kot Budha is situated at a distance of 45 Kms. from Fatuwal. All the three accused at that time were in police uniform. On reaching the informant’s (Joginder Singh’s) house, they scaled over the wall of the court yard. Gurpreet Kaur (PW 1) was sleeping with her mother Kans Kaur, deceased. Joginder Singh was sleeping in another room. While Sukhwinder Kaur, Inderjit Kaur and Sarabjit Singh were sleeping in a third room. Baljit Singh and Dilbagh Singh knocked at the door of the room where Gurpreet Kaur and Kans Kaur were sleeping and then at the door of the Joginder Singh’s room. On hearing the voice of Joginder Singh, they broke down the door with the butts of their rifles and fired at him. Thereafter, they broke down the door of the room where Gurpreet Kaur was sleeping and dragged Kans Kaur out. Despite pleas from Sukhwinder Kaur and her two sisters not to kill their mother, they fired shots at Kans Kaur. Avtar Singh, a cousin of Gurpreet Kaur also reached the courtyard by scaling over the wall. A shot was fired at him by the Appellant herein. The three accused thereafter ran away. The death of Kans Kaur and injuries suffered by Avtar Singh and Joginder Singh is not in dispute.

4. Before the learned Trial Judge, the prosecution examined Gurpreet Kaur, PW1, Joginder Singh, PW2 and Avtar Singh, PW3. Dr. Gurpal Singh, PW4 performed autopsy and submitted a report therefor Nachhatarpal Singh, PW14, as noticed hereinbefore, was a helper of the vehicle wherein the Appellant, Dilbagh Singh and Baljeet Singh travelled from Fatuwal to Kot Budha.

5. The prosecution also examined Inspector Dharam Singh to prove the absence of the three accused from duty from 11 P.M. on 20th February, 1995. Issuance of fire arms and ammunitions to all them was proved by Heard Constable, Gurmail Singh (PW 16). The injuries on the person of Avtar Singh and Joginder Singh were proved by Dr. Rana Verma. Although a plea of breach of procedures as regard holding of test identification parade was raised by Dilbagh Singh, no such plea was taken by the Appellant herein.

6. The contention of the Appellant herein before the Trial Court was that he having not been na