The court upheld the conviction of the appellants for attempt to murder based on the direct evidence of the victim and eyewitnesses, despite the absence of a motive and some minor contradictions in their statements.

Khem Karan, J.

Rajesh Kumar has been convicted under Section 307 and sentenced to R. I. for four years and Bhagwan Din has been convicted under Section 307/34 and sentenced to four years R. I. by the HIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Unnao, vide his judgment and order, dated 3-9-1985 delivered in Session Trial No, 322 of 1984. It is against this judgment and order that the present appeal has been filed by the two appellants.

2. THE prosecution case was that on 8-10-1983 at about 6 p. m. while the injured Abdul Raseed was sitting at the betel shop of one Putan, in front of the State Bank, Ganga Ghat, that these two appellants, accompanied by Mahesh Kumar and Sariya alias Amrat Lal reached there and on the exhortation of Bhagwan Din, Rajesh fired country-made pistol at Abdul Raseed, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his back. THE incident of firing was allegedly witnessed by Jalil Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad and Abdul Hameed. After necessary investigation, police submitted a charge-sheet in the Court of Magistrate and the latter committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

The accused Rajesh Kumar was charged under Section 307 and the remaining three accused were charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 of I. P. C. They pleaded not guilty.

3. IN the support of this case, the prosecution examined Abdul Raseed as P. W 1, Abdul Hameed as P. W. 2, Dr. Jitendra Singh as P. W. 3, Basir Ahmad as P. W 4, Head Constable, Jag Dev Singh, as P. W. 5 and I. O. , Prithvi Pal Singh, as P. W. 6.

4. THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that involvement of Mahesh and Amrat Lal was not proved beyond reasonable doubt as there was no overt act on their part, so he acquitted both of them. He, however, concluded that the charges framed against Rajesh Kumar and Bhagwan Din were well-established from the evidence on record, so he convicted these two accused and sentenced them, as stated above.

The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was no motive on the part of the appellants to kill or to cause hurt to Abdul Raseed. According to him, absence of motive demolishes the prosecution story and makes the evidence of Abdul Raseed and other alleged eye witnesses untrustworthy and unreliable. I am of the view that in such a case, where the prosecution claims to have direct evidence on the point of actual assault, absence of motive assumes no significance. The question in such a case is whether the evidence of the victim and as well as what alleged eye-witnesses is reliable and adequate enough to establish the charges beyond all reasonable doubts. Their evidence cannot be rejected simply on the ground that the prosecution has not proved the motive.

5. THE second contention from the side of the appellants is that the First In formation Report was ante- timed and ante-dated. According to the prosecution case and the evidence, the injured Abdul Raseed lodged First Information Report on the same day at 6. 45 p. m. at police station Ganga Ghat. Written First Information Report has been proved as Ext. K-1, chik F. I. R. as Ext. K-3 and entries in G. D. as Ext. K-4. THE basis of the argument seems to be the statement of Abdul Raseed on page 8, where he says that he sent the written F. I. R. from the hospital at about 1. 30 in the night, to the police station. It is the statement of P. W 1 that has given material to the learned counsel for the appellants to say that F. I. R. was ante-timed or ante-dated but Jagdev Singh P. W. 5, who prepared the chik report on the basis of the written F. I. R. Ext. K-A and who made necessary entries in the General Diary, deposes that chick F. I. R. was prepared at 6. 45 p. m. and at the same time necessary entries were made in the G. D. and the injured was sent to the doctor, with a report for medical examination. He has denied the suggestion that the papers were prepared on the next day. Dr. Jitendra Singh appearing as P. W 3 deposes that he had medically examined Abdul Raseed on 8