IMPORTANT POINT
Proof of motive is not a sine qua non before a person can be held guilty of the commission of a crime.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 and 323 read with section 34 r/w section 27 of Indian Arms Act-Prosecution of accused persons two in number for causing death of two persons and injuring one by gun shot injuries-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal-Dismissed by High Court-Appeals-Plea of appellants that even though two accused were well-known to the entire family of deceased K yet all her family members remained tight-lipped till the eventual disclosure of names of the two accused by deceased herself in her dying declaration-Held after the occurrence first endeavour of all close family members would have been, to have two injured treated at hospital- None of the close family members could have been expected to proceed to the police station to lodge a report when both the injured were critical- Full attention for welfare of the two close family members would have been the expected behaviour of all family members- The action to be taken against the assailants, would have been a matter of secondary concern. The contention of their not having made any statements at that juncture to the police, could not therefore, be considered unnatural- No reason whatsoever to doubt the dying declaration made by deceased K- No reason why the family of the deceased persons would falsely implicate the accused-appellants -Conviction of appellant accused persons called for no interference-Appeals dismissed. (Paras 17, 24)
        Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 and 323 read with section 34 r/w section 27 of Indian Arms Act-Prosecution of accused persons two in number for causing death of two persons and injuring one by gun shot injuries-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal-Dismissed by High Court-Appeals-Plea that in the prosecution case no role whatsoever had been attributed to appellant-accused no.2 - The evidence produced by prosecution clearly established that two accused-Appellants had come to the house of PW2 to commit the crime in question on a scooter- At one juncture only two cartridges can be loaded in a double barrel gun- With the cartridges loaded in the gun, A1 had fired the first two shots at deceased K - Thereafter, there were no live cartridges in the gun-Evidence of PW4, that afterA1 had fired two shots at K, A2 provided two live cartridges to A1 - A1 then fired one further shot at the deceased R-After the commission of the crime, A1 and A2 jointly made good their escape on a scooter -Hence held that both A1 and A2 jointly planned and committed the crime- Conviction of appellant accused persons called for no interference-Appeals dismissed (Para 19)
        Criminal Trial-Offence of murder- Plea of absence of motive-Held that there was sufficient motive even for the appellant-accused no.2 to commit the crime in question, in conjunction with his younger brother appellant-accused no.1- Again, proof of motive is not a sine qua non before a person can be held guilty of the commission of a crime- Motive being a matter of the mind, is more often than not, difficult to establish through evidence-Extensive oral evidence in the nature of the statements of three eye-witnesses that A2 was an active participant in the crime in question- The oral evidence against A2 was clear and unambiguous- Besides, motive of A2 was also fully established (Para 21)
        Criminal Trial-Offence of Murder-Dying Declaration-Whether was forged and fabricated - The question of doubting the dying declaration made by deceased could have arisen if there had been other cogent evidence to establish any material discrepancy therein- On the contrary three eye witnesses, supported the version of the factual position depicted in the statement of deceased - Hence held not possible to hold that the statement of deceased was either false or fabricated, or that, the statement was manipulated at the hands of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the appellants-accused nos.1 and 2 or that she was not medically fit to make a statement- The discrepancies in recording time, as well as, the overwriting pointed out were too trivial to brush aside the overwhelming oral evidence produced by the prosecution (Para 23)

JUDGMENT

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. —

1. These appeals have been preferred by Dheeraj Verma (original accused no.1) and Deepak Verma (original accused no.2) so as to assail the order of conviction and sentence dated 30.12.2005 rendered in Sessions Trial no.55 of 2003 by the Sessions Judge, Chamba, as also, the decision rendered by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2006, whereby, the conviction and sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, Chamba, on 30.12.2005, came to be upheld on 2.9.2009.

2. The prosecution, in order to bring home the case against the appellants-accused examined as many as 27 witnesses. The prosecution story, as is emerged from the statements of the witnesses, produced by the prosecution, reveals that Kamini Verma alias Doli resided with her father Arun Kumar PW2 in Mohalla Sultanpur, Chamba, in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Kamini Verma was married to Anmol Verma alias Munna on 6.2.2003. Thereafter, she had been residing along with her husband at Mukerian in the State of Punjab. On 28.7.2003, Kamini Verma came to her father’s house in Chamba from Pathankot. She had arrived at 05:30 hrs. She had been escorted to her father’s house by Rakesh Verma (her paternal uncle, i.e., younger brother of her father Arun Kumar, PW2), and his wife Veera.

3. About a year before the marriage of Kamini Verma with Anmol Verma, Deepak Verma, appellant-accused no.2 had approached Arun Kumar PW2 (father of Kamini Verma) with a marriage proposal for Kamini Verma, with his younger brother Dheeraj Verma appellant-accused no.1. Kamini Verma’s father, Arun Kumar did not accept the proposal. Thereafter, Kamini Verma was married to Anmol Verma on 6.2.2003. Earlier, Dheeraj Verma and Deepak Verma, were tenants in the house of Arun Kumar (PW2, father of Kamini Verma). The two accused were originally residents of Gurdaspur in the State of Punjab. The father of the accused, namely, Shyam Lal, a goldsmith, had moved to Chamba in the State of Himachal Pradesh, and had started to reside in the house of Arun Kumar PW2. Shyam Lal has reportedly now gone back to the State of Punjab. The affinity between the family of Arun Kumar (PW2, father of Kamini Verma) and Shyam Lal (father of appellants-accused Dheeraj Verma and Deepak Verma) was also based on the fact, that Deepak Verma, appellant-accused no.2, had been giving home tuitions to Kamini Verma and her brother Deepak Kumar (PW1).

4. Kamini Verma reached Chamba from Pathankot on 28.7.2003 at about 05:30 hrs. Dheeraj Verma, appellant-accused no.1 and Deepak Verma, appellant-accused no.2 came to the house of Arun Kumar (PW2, father of Kamini Verma) at Mohalla Sultanpur, Chamba at about 10:30 hrs. They had come on a scooter. Dheeraj Verma, appellant-accused no.1, had in his possession, a double barrel gun. According to the case of the prosecution, after taking breakfast, Kamini Verma went to the kitchen to clean utensils. Having cleaned the utensils she came out into the courtyard. As she stepped into the courtyard, Dheeraj Verma, appellant-accused no.1 fired one shot at her from his double barrel gun. This shot hit her in the abdomen. Dheeraj Verma, appellant-accused no.1, then fired another shot at Kamini Verma. The second shot hit her on the left shoulder. Sumitri Devi (PW4, grandmother of Kamini Verma) who had also come into the courtyard, tried to catch the two accused who were making good their escape. Dheeraj Verma, appellant-accused no.1 hit Sumitri Devi PW4 in her abdomen, chest and on her right wrist, with the butt of his double barrel gun. Later, when she was medically examined (on 3.8.2003), she was found to have suffered multiple bruises, but the nature of injuries was found to be simple. Even though, Sumitri Devi PW4 had picked up a stone and had thrown it at the appellant-accused no.1, but she had missed her mark.

5. According to the prosecution story, after two shots had been fired by Dheeraj Verma, appellant-accused no.1, Deepak Verma, appellant-accused no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 969

IMPORTANT POINT Proof of motive is not a sine qua non before a person can be held guilty of the commission of a crime.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Proof of motive is not a sine qua non before a person can be held guilty of the commission of a crime.