Point of Law: The academic distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' has always vexed the Courts.

JUDGMENT :

Ajai Tyagi, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Gaurav Kumar Srivastava against the judgment and order dated 28.08.2014, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad, in Session Trial No.117 of 2012 (State vs. Gaurav Kumar Srivastava) arising out of Case Crime No.137 of 2012 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Kamlaganj, District- Farrukhabad, whereby the appellant-accused was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 302 IPC. He was further directed to undergo six months of simple imprisonment, in case of default of fine.

2. The brief facts of this case are that on 31.03.2012, a written report was submitted by complainant Sitaram at Police Station-Kamalganj, District-Farrukhabad stating that besides his house in village Sindhirampur, there is house of his elder sister Smt. Phoolan Devi, wife of late Rakesh Chandra. Today on 31.03.2012 at about 10:30 PM, Phoolan Devi’s son Gaurav Kumar had murdered his mother Phoolan Devi by using Danda.On hearing the noise, he and Ram Saran of his village ran to the place of occurrence and saw the occurrence. They tried to catch Gaurav but he ran away. On the basis of this written report, a first information was registered at police station-Kamalganj on Case Crime No.137 of 2012 under Section 302 IPC.

3. S.I. Raj Kishore Awasthi took up the investigation. Inquest proceedings of deceased Phoolan Devi were conducted. Post mortem was conducted by Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma and post mortem report was prepared. During the course of investigation, the I.O. recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., site-plan was prepared. Accused was arrested and the Danda, used in crime, was recovered on his pointing out from his house, which was sent for chemical examination, the report of which indicated that it was having blood stains. After completing the investigation, I.O. submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant. The case being exclusively triable by court of sessions was committed to the sessions court by the competent Magistrate for trial.

4. Learned trial court framed charges against the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. To bring home the charges, the prosecution produced following witnesses, namely:

6. In support of the ocular version of the witnesses, following documents were produced by prosecution and contents were proved by leading the evidence:

7. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he said that false evidence is produced against him. The accused did not examine any witness in defence.

8. We have heard Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant, Shri Vikash Goswami, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant first of all submitted that in this case, complainant has not disclosed any motive of the crime in FIR nor the witnesses of fact made any statement regarding motive before the learned trial court. There was no occasion and no reason for appellant to commit the murder of his own mother. Therefore, silence of motive creates a big doubt on prosecution case and it cannot be inferred that accused-appellant committed the crime. It is also submitted that PW1 Sitaram i