Point of Law : In an eye-witness account though motive is not of much of relevance, presence and proof of motive affords a key or pointer to scan evidence in case in that perspective and motive in such a case becomes satisfactory circumstance of corroboration.

JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri R.L. Varma learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Roopak Chaubey learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.8.1989 passed by the Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 470 of 1987 (State vs. Ram Chandra) arising out of Case Crime No. 235/1987, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur whereby appellant Ram Chandra has been convicted of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.

3. The first information report of the incident, occurred on 25.7.1987 at about 6:00 PM, was lodged by Puttu son of Lakhan Kahar (PW-1) on the same day, i.e. 25.7.1987 at about 22:15 hours. As per the case of prosecution, the wife of the first informant named as Smt. Laraiti (deceased) was the daughter of one Jodha Kahar whose only son Maiku Lal had died a year before the incident and the wife of Jodha Kahar had predeceased him. The deceased Maiku Lal had no children. Jodha Kahar was survived by two daughters Laraiti, wife of the first informant and Kalawati mother of the appellant. A civil case about the inheritance of 40 Bighas of land of deceased Jodha was going on between the wife of the first informant and sons of his brother-in-law, namely Ram Chandra, Lala Ram and Roop Ram, residents of Village Mishripur, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur, wherein 27.7.1987 was the date fixed.

It is the case of the first informant that the said civil litigation was the cause of enmity between the parties. On 25.7.1987 at about 6:00 PM, the wife of the first informant Smt. Laraiti was collecting “Nimouri” from the Neem tree of one Raja Ram son of Rameshwar Dayal near the village. From the North side, Ram Chandra son of Jodha came having 'tabal' in his hand and as soon as he reached near Smt. Laraiti, he hit in her head by 'tabal'. The first informant, Ashiq Ali son of Munir, Krishna Pal, Chhote son of Maiku, Badri son of Sipahi and other villagers ran towards him and at that time the accused-appellant gave another blow of 'tabal' on the neck of the deceased and ran away towards the North-East direction. The first informant and the witnesses chased him but could not nab him. The injured Smt. Laraiti was brought to her home and while they were arranging for the vehicle to take her to the hospital, she died at around 8:30 PM.

4. The factum of lodging of the written report on the date of the incident by PW-1 (the first informant) was proved by PW-5, the Head Constable posted in P.S. Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur. He stated that the written report was given to him by the first informant (PW-1) and on the basis thereof, Check report was prepared as Check No. 100. PW-5 proved the Check report being in his handwriting and signature, marked as Exhibit Ka-2. The GD entry of the FIR was made at GD Rapat No. 75 Time 22:15 Hours on 25.7.1987, the original of which was produced in the Court. The certified copy of the carbon copy of the GD Rapat entry, prepared in the same process was filed and proved as Exhibit Ka-3. PW-5 had denied the suggestion of the report having been prepared Ante-time.

5. The inquest of the dead body was conducted on 26.7.1987 at about 8:30 AM in the house of the deceased and the inquest report is proved as Exhibit Ka-8.

6. PW-4, the Constable posted in P.S. Jalalabad at the time of the incident, stated that the body of deceased Laraiti kept in a sealed cloth alongwith the sample seal and relevant papers was handed over to him and Pooran Chaukidar on 26.7.1987 at about 8:30 AM to carry for the post-mortem and they moved to Shahjahanpur and handed over the dead body in the Police Lines Shahjahanpur. It was then sent for the post-mortem and was handed over to the doctor in the sealed state alongwith the sample seal. The body was identified by them before the doctor and the post-mortem was done. After completion of the post-mortem, one sealed bundle of clothes o