PETITIONER: JARNAIL SINGH AND ANR. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA DATE OF JUDGMENT20/01/1993 BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) CITATION: 1993 SCR (1) 260 1993 SCC Supl. (3) 91 JT 1993 (1) 207 1993 SCALE (1)153 ACT: Criminal Law: Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 3O2, 149 and Motive-Relevancy of-Held where positive evidence is cogent, clear and reliable motive is of no importance-Family members-Eye-witnesses-Whether independent evidence required. Evidence Act, 1872: Chapter IX-Murder-Evidence of family members as eye- witnesses-Reliability of. HEADNOTE: The first appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 192/1980 and his four sons were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonments for life. They were also convicted and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 of the Code. According to the prosecution, a son of the first appellant and a daughter of P.W. 4 fell in love with each other but due to opposition from P.W. 4's husband, their marriage could not take place and both of them committed suicide, and therefore, the first appellant and his four sons had a grudge that P.W. 4's husband was responsible for the death of the first appellant's son; that two months thereafter when P.W. 4's husband and his elder brother were returning to the village from town in a bullock-cart along with P.W. 4, P.W. 5,her daughter and P.W. 6, her son-in-law, the five accused, who were coming in a truck from the opposite direction got down from the truck, chased P.W. 4's husband and his elder brother, who were running away, and assaulted them with Gandasa and Lathies and after boarding the truck, drove the truck over the two brothers, that when P.W. 4 to 6 went near the two brothers they found them dead and a First Information Report was lodged, and a postmortem was held. 261 On the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, including that of PWs 4 to 6, the Session Judge came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the five accused were fully established. This finding was upheld by the High Court. In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the accused persons it was contended that a false case had been set up against them by PW 4, who had not seen the occurrence but having learnt the death of her husband and his elder brother, became an eye-witness along with PWs 5 and 6, her daughter and son-in-law respectively, only to implicate the accused persons, that there was no immediate motive for commission of such a serious offence in the facts and circumstances of the case, that it would not be proper to accept the motive alleged on behalf of the prosecution and that the eye-witnesses being only the members of the family, some independent evidence was required. Dismissing the appeals, this Court, HELD: 1.1. Where the positive evidence against the accused is clear, cogent and reliable, the question of motive is of no importance. But, at the same time, motive behind a crime is a relevant fact and normally prosecution is expected to adduce evidence in respect thereto. Experience shows that one or other motive moves the culprit to a certain course of action. Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 460; Narayan Nathu Naik v. The State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1656; Podda Narayana v. State of A.P., A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1252; Faquira v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 915 and Molu v. State of Haryana, A.I.P. 1976 S.C. 24", relied on. 1.2. Normally there is a motive behind every criminal act and that is why the investigating agency as well as the Court while examining the complicity of an accused, first try to ascertain as to what was the driving force which compelled the accused to commit the crime in question. But with complex growth of society and which has 'also produced complex characters, the actions and reactions of person either on the accuse side or on the prosecution side are not very easy to ascertain and judge. It is a matter of common experience that even a small or trifle incident has different reaction on different persons. That is why it is not always easy for the Court to weigh and judge as to whether under the circumstances 262 brought on record by the prosecution, In normal course the accused concerned could have acted as alleged by the prosecution. 13. In cases where prosecution is not able to establish a motive behind the alleged crime it assumes importance specially in cases where the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence or on witnesses who have an inimical background. Proof of motive on the pad of the accused persons to commit an offence satisfies the judicial mind about the likelihood of the authorship but in its absence it is only proper on the part of the Court to have a deeper search. But if the Court is satisfied that evidence adduced, oral or circumstantial, establishes the charge against the accused, the prosecution case cannot be rejected saying that there was no immediate impelling motive on the part of the accused persons to commit the crime. 1.4. In the present case, the son of the first appellant committed suicide two months before the date of occurrence because of the attitude taken by PW 4's deceased husband. It can be said that there was no immediate motive which impelled the accused persons to commit the murder of the two brothers in broad day light in such cruel manner. But the death of the son in a tragic circumstance must have shaken the family and there is nothing unnatural or unusual that because or that, the first appellant and his four sons having seen the deceased coming to village on bullock cart decided to eliminate him. 1.5. That apart, if the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is accepted, then whether there was immediate motive for committing the offence looses all significance. The present case has many special features which weigh heavily against the accused persons and it is not easy on their part to dislodge them. In cases relating to murder the time taken in lodging the F.I.R. assumes special significance. The fact that P.W. 4 lodged the F.I.R. within an hour of the occurrence giving the details of the manner of occurrence lends corroboration to her testimony in Court regarding the participation of the accused persons in the present occurrence. The manner of occurrence disclosed by P.W. 4 in the F.I.R. was fully corroborated by the postmortem examination reports. The two doctors during postmortem examinations found that injury No. 7 on the chest of P.W. 4's husband and injury No. 11 on his brother could have been caused by the wheel of the truck passing over the chest of P.W. 4's 263 husband and any blunt part of the truck striking against the body of his brother. This not only corroborates the version disclosed by P.W. 4 in the F.I.R. but goes a long way to establish the correctness thereof. 1.6. The members of the family, if present at the time of occurrence are the most natural witnesses. The version disclosed in the F.I.R. has been supported by 3 eyewitnesses P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6. There is no reason to doubt their testimony only on the ground that they were closely related to the victims. There is no evidence to show that any person after the occurrence appeared at the scene to engineer the present case against them. P.W. 4, whose husband and elder brother of her husband had succumbed to the injuries, was left alone to pursue the post occurrence steps without help or assistance from anyone else. 1.7. There is no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 192-
193 of 1980.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.9.1979 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 760 and 759 of
1977.
R.L. Kohli, U.R. Lalit and K.K. Mohan for the Appellants.
A.M. Singhvi, Ms. Renu George, Ms. Indu Malhotra and I.S.
Goyal for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N.P. SINGH, J. These appeals have been filed on behalf of
five accused persons, who have been convicted under section
302 read with section 149 of the Penal Code for committing
murder of Gurbux Singh and Wasava Singh and have been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonments for fife. They
have also been convicted under section 148 of the Penal Code
and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year.
It is the case of the prosecution that Rulwant Kaur, the
daughter of Gurbux Singh (deceased) and Raghbir Singh, son
of Jarnail Singh, one of the accused fell in love with each
other. As the marriage could not materialise due to
opposition, two months prior to the date of occurrence,
264
both of them committed suicide. It is said that accused
Jarnail Singh and his four sons who are the other four
accused had a grudge against Gurbux Singh that the latter
was responsible for the death of Raghbir Singh aforesaid.
On 25.9.1974 before noon Gurbux Singh, his elder brother
Wasava Singh along with Surjit Kaur (PW 4) the wife of
Gurbux Singh, Sukhwant Kaur (PW 5) the daughter of Gurbux
Singh, and Surinder Singh (PW 6) son-in-law of Gurbux Singh
were returning to their village from Sirsa in a bullock-cart
after selling green fodder and making some purchases in the
market. On the way they saw from the opposite side the five
accused coming in a trust which stopped in front of the
bullock cart. All the five accused persons got down from
the truck and raised a Lalkara “DUSHMANO KO JAN SE MAR DO
JANE NA PAYEN”. Accused Karma was armed with a Gandasa
whereas the three brothers and Jarnail Singh were armed with
lathis. Seeing the accused persons Gurbux Singh and his
brother Wasava Singh got down from the bullock-cart and
started running away. They were chased and the accused
persons assaulted both of them with their respective
weapons. Ultimately they fell down. The accused persons
then raised an alarm “BAHANCHOD BACH NA JAWEN TRUCK BHE UPAR
PHER DO”. Thereafter all the five accused persons boarded
the truck. Accused Mohani sat at the steering wheel and
drove the truck over the bodies of two victims Gurbux Singh
and Wasava Singh. After the accused persons left Surjit
Kaur (PW 4), her daughter (PW 5) and son-in-law (PW 6) went
near the victims and found them dead.
The First Information Report was lodged at 12.30 P.M. A copy
of the said F.I.R. reached the Magistrate concerned by 2.15
P.M. The Investigating Officer reached the place of
occurrence, held inquest and recorded the statement of
witnesses including the aforesaid Sukhwant Kaur and Surinder
Singh. PW 2 and PW 3 are doctors who held the post mortem
examination of Gurbux Singh and Wasava Singh respectively
the same day at 5.30 P.M. During the post mortem examination
on the persons of Gurbux Singh 13 injuries were found.
Injury No. 7 was contusion 14′ x 7 1/4 on the front of
chest. On dissection, collection of blood was found and
upper seven on right side and upper eight on left side of
the ribs were found to have been fractured. Both lungs were
badly lacerated. Heart was also badly lacerated along with
pleura. According to the opinion of the Doctor (PW 2), who
held the post mortem examination of the body of
265
Gurbux Singh, the aforesaid injury No. 7 could be caused by
wheel of the truck passing over the portion of chest of the
deceased. The Doctor (PW 3), who held the post mortem
examination of the dead-body of Wasava Singh, found 21
injuries on his person. Injury No. 11 found on the person
of Wasava Singh was raddish contusion 11″ x 1 1/2 on the
middle of the upper part of the chest. According to the
Doctor, the said injury No. 11 could be possible by any
blunt part of a truck striking against the body. During the
investigation at the instance of accused Karma, the Gandasa
with blood stain was recovered and lathis were also
recovered from the possession of the accused persons,
In view of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution
including that of Surjit Kaur (PW 4), Sukhwant Kaur (PW 5)
and her husband Surinder Singh (PW 6), the learned Sessions
Judge came to the conclusion that the charges levelled
against the five accused persons have been fully established
which finding has been upheld by the High Court.
According to the appellants, a false case has been set up
against them by Surjit Kaur (PW 4), the widow of Gurbux
Singh, who had not seen the occurrence, but having learnt
the death of Gurbux Singh and Wasava Singh became an eye
witness along with her daughter and son-in-law only to
implicate the accused persons. The counsel appearing for
the accused aforesaid pointed out that there was no
immediate motive for commission of such serious offence in
the facts and circumstances of the case and it shall not be
proper to accept the motive alleged on behalf of the
prosecution that as the son of accused Jarnail Singh and
daughter of Gurbux Singh had committed suicide, as their
marriage could not materialise because of the objection
raised by Gurbux Singh, accused Jarnail Singh and his four
sons chased the two victims on the road, and not only
assaulted them but also crushed them by the truck.
It is true that normally there is a motive behind every
criminal act and that is why the investigating agency as
well as the Court while examining the complicity of an
accused, first try to ascertain as to what was the driving
force which compelled the accused to commit the crime in
question. But with complex growth of society and which has
also produced complex characters, the actions and reactions
of persons either on the accused side or on the prosecution
side are not very easy to ascertain and judge. It is a
matter of common experience that even a small or trifle
266
incident has different reaction on different persons. That
is why it is not always easy for the Court to weigh and
judge as to whether under the circumstances brought on
record by the prosecution, in normal course the accused
concerned could have acted as alleged by the prosecution.
That is why this Court has repeatedly expressed the view
that where the positive evidence against the accused is
clear, cogent and reliable, the question of motive is of no
importance. Reference may be made to the cases of Gurcharan
Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460, Narayan Nathu
Naik v. The State of Maharashtar AIR 1971 SC 1656 = [1971] 1
SCR 133, Podda Narayana v. State of A.P., AIR 1975 SC 1252 =
[1975] 4 SCC 153, Faquira v. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 915
= [1976] 1 SCC 662, and Molu v. State of Haryana, AIR 1976
SC 2499 = [1976] 4 SCC 362. But at the same time it must be
impressed that motive behind a crime is a relevant fact and
normally prosecution is expected to adduce evidence in
respect thereof. Experience shows that one or other motive
moves the culprit to a certain course of action. In cases
where prosecution is not able to establish a motive behind
the alleged crime it assumes importance especially in cases
where the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence or on
witnesses who have an inimical background. Proof of motive
on the part of the accused persons to commit an offence
satisfies the judicial mind about the likelihood of the
authorship but in its absence it is only proper on the part
of the Court to have a deeper search. But if the Court is
satisfied that evidence adduced oral or circumstantial
establishes the charge against the accused, the prosecution
case cannot be rejected saying that there was no immediate
impelling motive on the part of the accused persons to
commit the crime.
In the present case Raghbir Singh, the son of accused
Jarnail Singh, committed suicide two months before the date
of occurrence because of the attitude taken by the deceased
Gurbux Singh is not in dispute. It can be said that there
was no immediate motive which impelled the accused persons
to commit the murder of Gurbux Singh and Wasava Singh in
broad day light in such a cruel manner. But the death of
Raghbir Singh in a tragic circumstance must have shaken the
family and there is nothing unnatural or unusual that
because of that Jarnail Singh and his four sons having seen
Gurbux Singh coming to village on bullock-cart decided to
eliminate him.
Apart from that if the evidence adduced on behalf of the
prosecution
267
is accepted then whether there was immediate motive for
committing the offence loses all significance. The present
case has many special features which weigh heavily against
the accused persons and it is not easy on their part to
dislodge them. The occurrence took place before noon. The
F.I.R. was lodged at 12.30 P.M. within an hour. A copy of
the F.I.R. was received by the concerned Magistrate by 2.25
P.M., the same day. The Investigating Officer reached the
place of occurrence before 4 P.M. Even the port mortem
examinations of the two victims were held by two doctors
mentioned above by 5.30 P.M. the same day. In cases
relating to murder the time taken in lodging the F.I.R.
assumes special significance. The F.I.R. being the first
version of the occurrence disclosed to the police acts as
check on the part of the prosecution. The fact that Surjit
Kaur (PW 4) lodged the F.I.R. within an hour of the
occurrence, giving the details of the manner of occurrence
lends corroboration to her testimony in Court regarding the
participation of the accused persons in the present occur-
rence. The manner of occurrence disclosed by Surjit Kaur
(PW 4) in the F.I.R. was fully corroborated by the post
mortem examination reports. She stated in the F.I.R. at
12.30 P.M. that accused persons after having assaulted the
two victims with Gandasa and Lathis, crushed them with the
wheel of the truck. The two doctors during post mortem
examinations found that injury No. 7 on the chest of Gurbux
Singh and injury No. 11 on Wasava Singh could have been
caused by the wheel of the truck passing over the chest of
Gurbux Singh and any blunt part of the truck striking
against the body of Wasava Singh. This not only
corroborates the version disclosed by Surjit Kaur (PW 4) in
the F.I.R. but goes a long way to establish the correctness
thereof. It Surjit Kaur (PW 4) had not witnessed the
occurrence as suggested by accused persons then how she
could have mentioned in the F.I.R. that after assaulting the
two victims the accused persons entered into the truck and
crushed the victims with the wheel of the truck, which is
supported by the post mortem examination.
The learned counsel could not point out from the evidence of
Surjit Kaur (PW 4) which has been fully accepted by the
Trial Court as well as the High Court as to on what ground
that should be rejected. The same is the position so far
the evidence of Sukhwant Kaur (PW 5) and Surinder Singh (PW
6). About Sukhwant Kaur (PW 5) it was pointed out that she
was not present at the place of occurrence when the
Investigating Officer reached and she came only later.
However, so far Surinder Singh (PW 6) is concerned, he was
present when the Investigation. Officer reached the
268
place of occurrence. It was urged on behalf of the accused
persons that although Surjit Kaur (PW 4) had claimed in her
evidence that she had made purchases in the market before
returning to the village but no such article was found in
the bullock-cart. On behalf of the accused the traditional
and conventional argument that the eye witnesses being only
the members of the family, some independent evidence was
required, was also advanced. This argument has been
repeatedly rejected by this Court saying that the members of
the family if present at the time of occurrence are the most
natural witnesses. According to us, all these submissions
are of no significance, in view of the fact that the first
information report was lodged within an hour of the
occurrence; a copy whereof was received by the Magistrate
within two hours of the recording thereof. The version
disclosed in the F.I.R. has been supported by three eye
witnesses PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6. We find no reason to doubt
their testimony only on the ground that they were closely
related to the victims. There is no suggestion much less
evidence on behalf of the accused persons to show that any
person after the occurrence appeared at the scene to
engineer the present case against them. It appears Surjit
Kaur (PW 4) whose husband and elder brother of her husband
had succumbed to the injuries, was left alone to pursue the
post occurrence steps without help or assistance from anyone
else.
We find no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by
the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. Therefore,
the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.
N.P.V. Appeals dismissed.
269