The absence of a clear motive does not weaken the prosecution's case in a murder trial. Motive is a relevant factor, but it is not an essential element for a murder conviction.

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No. 462-DB Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab was heard by us along with Crl. Revision No. 734 of 1995 Baldev Singh v. Mohinder Singh and another. We had heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length on 24.4.1997. We had dismissed the appeal filed by accused Mohinder Singh, while in Criminal Revision preferred by Baldev Singh, we had directed the fine to be converted to compensation payable to the petitioner in criminal revision. This short order was pronounced by us for the reasons to be stated later on.

2. Consequently, we proceed to give reasons for our decision aforesaid.

3. Amrik Singh, a young boy of 20 years resident of village Kamalu, was going to the house of Mukhtiar Singh, his uncle, to obtain spray pump for spraying insecticide on 27.1.1994 at about 7.00 PM when he was brutally murdered by Mohinder Singh accused. This brutal murder was witnessed by Baldev Singh, father of the deceased and his brother Harbans Singh. Baldev Singh (PW2) made the statement which was recorded by Hardevinder Singh ASI (PW4) of Police State Maur, which was nearly 7 miles away from the place of occurrence. Recording of the statement was concluded at 9.30 P.M. and special report was sent to the judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhatinda which is approximately 40 Kms away from the police station aforestated at about 2 A.M. on 27/28.1.1994 According to PW.2 when Amarik Singh was going to his uncles house and reached near the house of Darshan Singh son of Bachittar Singh, Mohinder Singh had come armed with a gandasa from under a Tahli tree where probably he was hiding himself and after raising lalkara that he would teach the deceased a lesson for prohibiting him from playing tape-recorder at high-pitch, the accused gave gandasa blows from sharp side on the head and another gandasa blow hitting near right ear and right eye of deceased Amrik Singh. Amrik Singh fell down on the ground. Baldev Singh raised hue and cry and raula, "dont kill, dont kill," but the accused continued to give more gandasa blows on the deceased even after the deceased had fallen on the ground. During this period, Harbans Singh (PW.3) brother of Baldev Singh happened to come from other side towards the place of occurrence. He also raised an alarm, upon which the accused managed to escape and took away the gandasa with him. All these persons went near the deceased who had breathed his last. Harbans Singh and wife of Baldev Singh remained near the dead body of Amrik Singh, while Baldev Singh proceeded to inform the police. The police met him at bus stand Rajgarh Kube where his statement was recorded and the police further proceeded to investigate the matter. The Investigating Officer (PW.4) recorded the statements of the witnesses, collected blood stained earth for which recovery memo. Ex.PE was prepared. The accused while in custody made disclosure statement vide Ex.PG and got blood stained gandasa (Ex.P1), the weapon of offence, recovered from the Toori room in the residential house of the accused. The reports of the chemical examiner and Serologist were exhibited as PK, PL, PN and PX respectively. The accused was challaned and sent to face the trial before the trial Court for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the Court while finding the said accused Mohinder Singh guilty of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default thereof to suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months, resulting in the filing of the present appeal.

5. Baldev Singh, father of the deceased has preferred criminal revision No. 734 of 1995 praying for payment of compensation on account of death of his son in the occurrence.

6. The main argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that there is no mot