2000(2) Crimes 260 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
K.T. Thomas & Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.
State of U.P. — Appellant
versus
Babu Ram — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 279-281 of 1995
Decided on 11-4-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Prashant Kumar, A.S. Pundir, Y.P. Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ms. N.P. Midha, Bharat Sangal, Advocates.

Important point
Motive is a relevant factor in all criminal cases whether based on the testimony of eye witnesses or circumstan­tial evidence. The question in this regard is whether a prosecution must fail because it failed to prove the motive or even whether ina­bility to prove motive would weaken the prosecution to any perceptible limit.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Murder—Patricide-cum-matri­cide-cum-fratricide—Conviction on basis of circumstantial evidence—Circumstances that accused and deceased person alone occu­pied house on fateful night, false explanation to witnesses that deceased persons gone to temple but not returned, disinterring of dead bodies from ­verandah of house, motive that ­father refused to give accused portion of landed property as demanded by him, recovery of articles used for burial of dead bodies and extra judicial confes­sion—Trial Court convicting accused with capital punishment—High Court ­acquitting accused on ground motive was not proved, lapses on part of investigating officer in collecting incriminating articles from spot, delay in interrogating accused by investigating officer and time of death as fixed by prosecution did not match with post mortem report—Held, reasoning of High Court for dispelling evidence which otherwise positively inculpate accused not correct—Trial Court rightly appreciated circumstances and convicted accused—High Courts acquittal order unmerited—Conviction restored and sentence reduced to life imprisonment.

       Held : The present is not a case of complete dearth of motive. Respondent himself said about the motive and PW 6 confirmed it. Such a motive may appear to some persons as inadequate for liquidating once own parents. But any rancour burgeoning in the mind of an offender can foment wicked thoughts which may even flame up to flash point. So we are unable to concur with the High Court’s view that the motive factor has weakened the prosecution case. (Para 13)

       The High Court hesitated to place reliance on the circumstance relating to the disinternment of three dead bodies from the verandah for which learned judges advanced the following reasons : First is that in the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer he did not give particulars or details of that place. Second is that the Investigating Officer did not mention about the amount of “mud and morang” noticed near the pit. The third is he did not take into custody the wooden planks or the mud from the said place. The last is he did not indicate in the site plan that blood was found at that place nor did he take the bloodstained earth therefrom. The reasons of the Division Bench for dropping down such a sturdy circumstance (disinterment of the three dead bodies at the instance of the respondent) are flimsy and tenuous. It is apparent that the Division Bench had strained to ferret out some fragile grounds for sidelining such a highly incriminating circumstance. The very approach of the High Court in this regard does not merit approv­al. It is not possible to understand the rationale of the reasoning that if an Investigating Officer did not instruct the person who drew up the site plan to note down certain details that would render the testimony of material witnesses unreliable. (Para 14)

       Regarding the circumstance that respondent had first tried to mislead the people by saying that the three deceased persons had gone to attend the temple festival, the Division Bench commented that as the said version was not believed by others as a probable version the respondent too would not have chosen to give such a version to the witnesses. An offender who attempts to mislead others need not necessarily arm with a ready foolproof explanation to any cross-question from his listeners. Quite often such offenders might try to advance explana­tions which strike them momentarily when they are compelled to explain incongruous aspects. If the explanation offered by the offender appeared incredible to the listeners that is hardly a ground to conclude that the offender would not have given such explanation. That apart, in this case it is pertinent to point out that even when the respondent was examined by the trial Court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he has stated that the three deceased had gone to the temple to participate in the festival. If that was his own stand even at the last stage, what is the need for the High Court to say that respondent would be have stated so to PW 6 and PW 7? (Paras 15 and 16)

       The High Court has chosen to sidestep another incriminating circumstance which is based on Section 27 of the Evidence Act on the ground of delay in interrogating the accused by the investigat­ing officer. We are unable to appreciate the said reasoning for dispelling the evidence which otherwise is a circumstance positively inculpating the respondent. An Investigating Officer may have his own reasons for not interrogating the accused as soon as he saw him. Court cannot overlook the realities that Investigating Officer, who is otherwise a police officer, has to attend to umpteen engagements and even in the investigation of the particular case itself he may have to observe a number of formalities, even it is assumed that he had only one case to investigate at that time. (Paras 17 & 18)

       The trial Court rightly appreciated the circumstances presented by the prosecution through the evidence and found them reliable and on the basis of such circumstances reached the conclusion that the re­spondent was responsible for the murder of his parents and brother. Unmerited acquittal passed by the High Court set aside and conviction passed by trial Court ­restored but sentenced to imprisonment for life. (Para 25)

       (ii) Criminal trial—Motive for crime—Relevance and proof in cases depending on circumstantial evidence.

       It is not correct to say that motive may not be very much material in cases depending on direct evidence whereas motive is material only when the case depends upon circumstantial evidence. There is no legal warrant for making such a hiatus in criminal cases as for the motive for committing the crime. Motive is a relevant factor in all criminal cases whether based on the testimony of eye witnesses or circumstan­tial evidence. The question in this regard is whether a prosecution must fail because it failed to prove the motive or even whether ina­bility to prove motive would weaken the prosecution to any perceptible limit. No doubt, if the prosecution proves the existence of a motive it would be well and good for it, particularly in a case depending on circumstantial evidence, for such motive could then be counted as one of the circumstances. However, it cannot be forgotten that it is generally a difficult area for any prosecution to bring on record what was in the mind of the respondent. Even if the Investigating Officer would have succeeded in knowing it through interrogations that cannot be put in evidence by them due to the ban imposed by law. (Para 11)

       (iii) Criminal trial—Delay in interrogating accused by investigating ­officer—Cannot always be ground to dispel evidence.

       An Investigating Officer may have his own reasons for not interrogating the accused as soon as he saw him. Court cannot overlook the realities that Investigating Officer, who is otherwise a police officer, has to attend to umpteen engagements and even in the investigation of the particular case itself he may have to observe a number of formalities, even it is assumed that he had only one case to investigate at that time. (Para 18)

       Result : Appeal allowed.