Point of law : Motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and therefore motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 304, 299, 300 - Murder - Culpable homicide - Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder -Appeal Against Conviction -First Information Report - F.I.R. was lodged by informant of the deceased alleging therein that while his father was tying his goat, Police Station appellant son suddenly came and started beating his father by a Danda - His father shouted then informant rushed to the spot and after seeing them accused ran away - Motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and therefore motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced (Para 23).
Finding of the Court :
Facts and circumstances of case it is apparent that appellant who was aged of age at time of alleged incident made one or two blow of on deceased aged - Though it was on a vital part but it was without intention to kill because it could not be proved - Though it may be with knowledge that it is likely to cause death - Therefore this Court is of view that offence would fall under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C - Learned trial court also has awarded punishment of life imprisonment only under Section 302 I.P.C. whereas punishment for murder provided under Section 302 is with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine therefore only life imprisonment could not have been awarded under Section 302 IPC.
Results: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.01.2006 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No.6, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No.126 of 2004; State Versus Phool Chandra under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Sarai Khwaja, District-Jaunpur arising out of Case Crime No.8 of 2004 whereby the appellant Phool Chandra has been convicted and awarded sentence under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment.

2. The F.I.R. was lodged by the informant Rajesh Kumar Agrahri son of the deceased Ram Asrey on 08.01.2004 at 18:10 alleging therein that while his father was tying his goat in front of Malhani Bazar (Bhadora) Temple, Police Station Sarai Khwaja, District Jaunpur at 01:30 in the day on 08.01.2004, Phool Chandra Yadav, the appellant son of Kewla Prasad suddenly came and started beating his father by a Danda. His father shouted then the informant and Sonu son of Harish Chandra and Gulab Chandra @ Gullu son of Banarsi rushed to the spot and after seeing them the accused ran away. The deceased was taken to the Sadar Hospital, Jaunpur where he died during treatment. In pursuance of the aforesaid F.I.R. the investigation was conducted and the charge sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 304 I.P.C.

3. Since the charge was under Section 304 I.P.C. the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The charge was framed by the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur on 20.04.2004 against the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. Charge was read over and explained to the accused who denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

4. In support of the charge seven witnesses were examined namely Rajesh Kumar Agrahri as PW-1, Sonu Gupta as PW-2 as witnesses of fact. Head Constable Adya Prasad Yadav as PW-3, who had written the F.I.R. on the basis of complaint. Dr. P.N. Pandey as PW-4, who had conducted the postmortem. Constable Subhash Chandra Pandey as PW-5, who took the body of the deceased to the postmortem house. Sub-Inspector Amar Singh as PW-6, the investigating officer of the case and Dr. Rajnath Gautam as PW-7 the Medical Officer who had examined the injuries of the deceased.

5. After the evidence was adduced by the prosecution, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations and stated that the evidence has been given by PW-1 and PW-2 due to enmity and PW-4 to PW-7 are the Government witnesses and they have given forged evidence. Lastly he stated that Ram Asrey was patient of Asthema. He had difficulty in movement. While he was tying the goat near the temple, the goat tried to run, on account of which he fell on well head in which he suffered injuries but he has falsely been implicated. After considering the evidence and material on record, the appellant has been convicted and awarded sentence for life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C.

6. We have heard Sri Manu Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Km. Meena, learned A.G.A. for the State.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated. The presence of witnesses on the spot and the place of incident is doubtful. The PW-2 stated that he and Rajesh; PW-1 had gone to see fair in Baba at Gauspur and returned home in the evening and then took deceased to hospital. It was informed by the people that the deceased has sustained injuries by lathi danda. He further submitted that injured was admitted in hospital by the villager and not by the son therefore the presence of PW-1 is also doubtful. He further submitted that the place of incident is also doubtful because no blood stain was recovered whereas doctor had stated that deceased died due to excessive bleeding. The doubt has also been raised in regard to place of arrest of the appellant on the ground that PW-1 stated that the arrest was made from sugar cane field whereas PW-2 stated that the appellant was found sitting at his house eating sugar cane. The recovery is also said to be doubtful and it has