The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of motive in a murder case, the burden on the prosecution to establish motive, and the weight of direct evidence in establishing the crime.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. The Appeal is preferred under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (for short “CRPC”) against the acquittal recorded under the judgment and order dated 31.07.1998 in Sessions Case No. 192 of 1992 by Additional Sessions Judge, Surat.

2. The two accused respondents (for short “accused”) were Charged and tried for offences under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence arose out of an incident for which an FIR came to be registered vide C.R. No. I-14 of 1992 with Sachin Police Station, Surat.

3. The main contention raised by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor against the acquittal is that the case of the prosecution was based on the strong evidence of three eyewitnesses and these witnesses are reliable and the presence of such witnesses at the place and the time of offense was very natural. It is also submitted that the eyewitnesses have identified the accused persons during the course of trial and therefore, considering the role attributed to the accused, the prosecution was able to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.

4. It is submitted that the Sessions Court has committed an error in giving importance to the minor contradictions to doubt the veracity of these witnesses.

5. It is submitted that an error is also committed by holding that the prosecution has failed to attribute any motive behind commission of such offense as it was not a case of circumstantial evidence, but case of eyewitnesses and hence, there was no requirement for the prosecution to establish the motive. Therefore, the Sessions Court has committed an error in referring to a civil suit proceedings in which the deceased was a witness in a panchanama because of which he was targeted. In this regard, the Sessions Court has given a finding that the details regarding the civil proceedings mentioned are not connected with the accused persons and therefore, they had no motive in committing the offence. It is submitted that such a finding was unwarranted when the case of the prosecution was not based on any motive.

6. In this regard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Bipin Kumar Mondal vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 12 SCC 91.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has thereafter taken this Court extensively through the evidence of PW-1, who is the doctor who performed the postmortem and submitted that the prosecution was able to establish the homicidal death of the deceased Anish Desai. Thereafter, learned Additional Public Prosecutor took this Court through the evidences of three eyewitnesses namely PW-4 Chhaganbhai Vikrabhai Prajapati Exh.24, PW-7 Narsibhai Harjibhai Exh.31 and PW-8 Rohitbhai Govindbhai Patel Exh.33.

8. As against this, learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have jointly submitted that the burden on the prosecution is heavy once an acquittal is recorded by proper appreciation of evidence and cogent reasonings. It is submitted that on the same set of evidence, the prosecution is unable to sustain the challenge and submitted that the view taken by the Sessions Court is not perverse or so unreasonable so as to warrant any interference.

9. It is submitted that motive is a strong circumstance which the prosecution needs to establish especially when the prosecution itself since beginning that is from the filing of the FIR has made out a case of attributing motive to murder deceased Anish Desai as he was a witness in the civil proceedings connected with the accused. Once having adopted this line, it is not open for the prosecution to take a U turn and claim that motive has no role to play.

10. It is submitted that none of three eyewitnesses can be treated to be genuine and truthful eyewitnesses. The advocates have drawn attention of this Court to the cross examination of these three witnesses and submitted that in the cross examination certain answers given by these witnesses will clearly cre