The importance of proving motive and the inadequacy of motive as a defense in criminal cases.

THOMAS, J.

Deceased, a septuagenarian, sustained three stab wounds, one on his chest, another on his neck and the third on his left arm. The incident happened during the evening of 2-11-1988. He succumbed to his injuries within a short while. Appellant, a relation of the deceased, was convicted by the Sessions Court for murder of the deceased and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was also convicted for inflicting stab injuries to two other persons (P.Ws. 1 and 2) in the same incident and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. He has filed this appeal.

2. Prosecution case is compendiously narrated in the following lines : Deceased was seventy-two when he died. He was living with his brother (P.W. 1) and children in their house. This family had a feud with appellant's uncle over a timber tree which stood on or near the border of their properties. That dispute gave rise to criminal cases filed against each other. The local panchayat member (P.W. 8) intervened and brought about a truce between them. As the appellant was not consulted on this, he resented against the terms of settlement. Around 6 p.m. on the date of occurrence, appellant went to deceased's residence to enquire about the settlement. The deceased came out of the house and walked along with the appellant talking about the subject. As they covered the Courtyard and reached the public road, appellant took out a knife and inflicted stab injuries on the deceased. P.W. 2 (son of P.W. 1) rushed to the rescue of the victim, but he too was stabbed by the appellant. However, the knife was wrested from him when P.W. 2 was reinforced by P.W. 1 Who came to the scene hearing the noise. When the appellant was disarmed, he escaped from the place. The deceased was removed to the nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead by the doctor.

3. The chest injury sustained by the deceased was ostensibly fatal. The doctor (P.W. 6), who conducted the autopsy described it as a penetrating wound on the suprasternal notch piercing the sternum and extending to the mediastinum cutting the walls of the arch of aorta. The injury on the neck was also serious. It cut through the muscles of the neck and severed the jugular vain. He had an incised muscle deep wound on the left upper arm. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to the injury on the chest. P.W. 2 had an incised muscle deep injury on the left upper arm. P.W. 1 sustained a relatively minor incised injury on the left leg and some multiple abrasions on the knees.

4. The appellant stated in the trial Court that the decision of panchayat member to release timber tree in favour of his uncle was to the chagrin of the deceased who entertained a feeling that appellant was instrumental in bringing about such a settlement. About the incident, he said that when the deceased, P.Ws. 1 and 2 caught hold of him and assaulted him, he took out his knife and brandished it in self-protection. To support his version, he examined D.W. 1. Learned Sessions Judge refused to place reliance on D.W. 1 for which some reasons have been given in the judgment. It is unnecessary to repeat those reasons, since no serious attempt was made to convince us of the reliability of D.W. 1's evidence. We have no doubt, as we went through his testimony, that it does not deserve credence:

5. Prosecution has proved fairly well that the deceased sustained fatal injuries from the appellant at the place and time suggested in the charge. We may point out that there was no serious dispute on that point either in the trial Court or here. Learned counsel for the appellant here tried to show that deceased was the aggressor, or in the alternative the prosecution failed to establish that appellant was the aggressor. Whether appellant exceeded his right, if any, need be considered, only if we agree with the defence contention that deceased would have been the aggressor.

6. Mini, niece of the deceased was examined as P.W. 4. She is a college student. Her e