2003(3) Crimes 86 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu and G.P. Mathur, JJ.
Thaman Kumar —Appellant
versus
State of Union Territory of Chandigarh —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 425 of 1996
With
Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 1996
Decided on 6-5-2003

Important Point
Where ocular evidence is found to be trustworthy and reliable and finds corroboration from medical evidence a finding of guilt can be recorded even if motive for commission of crime has not been proved.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302/34—Appellants A2 and A3 strangulated deceased by a rolled chadar while A1 sat over chest of deceased and caught his both hands—On hearing cries of deceased, PW4 and PW5, two constables on patrolling, entered into garage, place of incident, saw appellants committing murder—A2 and A3 were captured on spot but A1 owner of house ran away—Conviction recorded by High Court by converting acquittal judgment—Appeal—Incident took place at 12.30 in the night and copy of FIR was received by Ilaqua ­Magistrate at 4 a.m.—Promptness with which FIR was lodged, its copy sent to Ilaqua Magistrate and body sent to mortuary lend great assurance to truthfulness of prosecution case—Eye witness account found complete corroboration from medical evidence—Defence plea appeared highly improbable and unnatural—Even if witness, brother of deceased, turned hostile on point of motive, when ocular evidence was found to be trustworthy and reliable and found corroboration from medical evidence, finding of guilt could be ­recorded—Conviction was not liable to be interfered with. (Paras 9, 10, 14, 15 and 18)

       (ii) Criminal Trial—Conflict between oral testimony and medical evidence—Can be of varied dimensions and shapes—Factors to be taken into consideration in judging reliability of ocular testimony.

       Held : The conflict between oral testimony and medical evidence can be of varied dimensions and shapes. There may be a case where there is total absence of injuries which are normally caused by a particular weapon. There is another category where though the injuries found on the victim are of the type which are possible by the weapon of assault, but the size and dimension of the injuries do not exactly tally with the size and dimension of the weapon. The third category can be where the injuries found on the victim are such which are normally caused by the weapon of assault but they are not found on that portion of the body where they are deposed to have been caused by the eye-witnesses. The same kind of inference cannot be drawn in the three categories of apparent conflict in oral and medical evidence enumerated above. In the first category it may legitimately be inferred that the oral evidence regarding assault having been made from a particular weapon is not truthful. However, in the second and third category no such inference can straightway be drawn. The manner and method of assault, the position of the victim, the resistance offered by him, the opportunity available to the witnesses to see the occurrence like their distance, presence of light and many other similar factors will have to be taken into consideration in judging the reliability of ocular testimony. (Para 13)

       Further held : In Punjab Singh v. State of Haryana 1984 (Supp) SCC 233 it was held that if direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable, the same cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence. Again in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar 2001 (7) SCC 318 it was held that if medical evidence when properly read shows two alternative possibilities but not any inconsistency, the one consistent with the reliable and satisfactory statements of the eye-witnesses has to be accepted. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken in the above cases. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that in the case in hand there is no inconsistency between the testimony of the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence and the case of the prosecution does not suffer from any infirmity on that account. (Para 14)

       (iii) Criminal Trial—Motive—Where ocular evidence is found to be trustworthy and reliable and finds corroboration from medical evidence, finding of guilt could be recorded even if motive for crime had not been proved.

       Held : There is no such principle or rule of law that where the prosecution fails to prove the motive for commission of the crime, it must necessarily result in acquittal of the accused. Where the ocular evidence is found to be trustworthy and reliable and finds corroboration from the medical evidence, a finding of guilt can safely be recorded even if the motive for the commission of the crime has not been proved. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh 1999 (4) SCC 370 it was held that no doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no offence was committed if the prosecution failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it, as it is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unreveal the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended. In Nathuni Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. 1998 (9) SCC 238 it was held that motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution as one cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act and such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionately grave to do grave crimes. It was further held that many a murders have been committed without any known or prominent motive and it is quite possible that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undiscoverable. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the absence of any evidence on the point of motive cannot have any such impact so as to discard the other reliable evidence available on record which unerringly establishes the guilt of the accused. (Para 15)

       Result : Appeal dismissed.