JUDGMENT
Debiprasad Sengupta, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Birbhum at Rampurhat in Sessions Trial No.3 of May, 2001 (Sessions Case No. 1 of 2000) thereby convicting the accused appellant under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer further RI for six months. The appellant was also convicted under Section 325 IPC and was sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer RI for a further period of six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. On the basis of a complaint lodged by PW.7, the uncle of the deceased Pradip, a case was registered with the police and it was alleged in the First Information Report that on 26.7.99 at about 9.00 a.m. when victim Pradip was playing with his friends at Chhitaspur, Kalitala, the accused appellant caused grievous hurt with a “Trishul” on the head of Pradip and then to Charan and Mariram. All the three children, who were aged about 5 years, were removed to the hospital and Pradip expired on the same day at about 12.05 noon. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted under Section 324/326/ 304 IPC. The learned Trial Judge after considering the materials placed before him framed charges under Section 324/326/304 IPC.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses while none was examined on behalf of the defence.
4. PWs. 1 and 3 were the witnesses, who claimed to have seen the incident. They were the eye-witnesses to the incident of assaults. PW.1 Fatal Das stated in his evidence that victim Pradip was playing with his two friends, namely Charan and Mariram in front of Kali temple. Victim Pradip was then 5 years old and Charan and Mariram was also of the same age group. It is stated by PW.1 that at the time of incident, he was passing through the road in front of the Kali temple, when he heard the cry of the boys. Being attracted by such cry, he found the accused Sentu Mal assaulting Charan and Mariram with the Trishul of the said Kali temple. Both of them were bleeding profusely. PW.1 thereafter rushed to the place and the accused also threatened him by saying that he would also kill him. PW.1 rescued the two injured boys and kept them at a little distance. It is further stated by PW.1 that while Pradip Das was trying to escape, the accused chased him and inflicted injury by the said Trishul on his head. PW.1 shouted and the villagers came and apprehended the accused in front of the house of victim Pradip. The accused Sentu Mal confessed his guilt in presence of the villagers. PW.2 was a post-occurrence witness. On hearing the hue and cry he came out from his house and found the three injured boys in front of the house of the victim Pradip. PW.2 along with PW.1 and mother of Mariram took the injured boys to the hospital by a rickshaw and Pradip expired on the same day. PW.3 Akal Mal was another eye-witness to the occurrence. He stated in his evidence that at about 9.00 a.m. he was sitting on a vacant place in front of Kali temple and he found the accused assaulting Charan and Mariram with the help of a Trishul. He rushed to the place of occurrence and the accused also chased him to attack. He also stated about the presence of PW.1 Patal at the place of occurrence. It is in his evidence that after assaulting Charan and Mariram, the accused assaulted Pradip on his head with the same Trishul. PW.4 Haradhan Mal was the father of victim Mariram. He is a post-occurrence witness and he was reported by PW.1 and PW.3, the two eye-witnesses about the incident. He along with other villagers came out of their house and found the accused running. They apprehended the accused in front of the house of victim Pradip. PW.5 Debasish Mukherjee is also a post-occurrence witness and after hearing the hue and cry, he along with others rushed to the Kali temple and found that some villagers apprehended the accused. He came to know about the incident from PW.1, PW.3 as also from PW.2. This witness further stated that on being asked the accused confessed his guilt. PW.6 Piru Das was the father of victim Pradip Das. He received the information at about 12.00 noon and immediately he rushed to the hospital and saw the deadbody of his son Pradip. At the time of occurrence, he was outside the village and after his return, he was reported about the incident by PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3. PW.7 Sadhan Das was the uncle of victim Pradip and he corroborated his earlier statement made in the FIR. According to him, FIR was written by Debasish Mukherjee, PW.5 as per his instruction and he put his signature on the FIR. He was also a witness to the seizure of Trishul. PW.8 was a formal witness. PW.9 was the doctor who examined the injured children immediately after the incident. On examination of Charan Mal, he found injuries 3″ x 1/2″ x 1/4″ incised wounds on left parietal region and another injury of same nature measuring 3″ x 1/2″ x 1/4″ on back of forehead. The injured was unconscious. On examination of Pradip Das, he found him unconscious with injuries 3″ x 1″ x 1/2″ x 1/4″ on back of scalp and also injury on left temporal region 2″ x 1/4″. After examining Mariram, he found blast, mark on right temporal region and he was also found unconscious. He also opined that the injuries found on the body of the victims might be caused by weapon like Trishul. PW.10 was the Autopsy Surgeon who also found injury on the deadbody of victim Pradip, which was 6″ x 2″ brain deep sharp-cutting injury over back of scalp (over occipital region). PW.11 was a formal witness who recorded the FIR. PW.12 was the Investigating Officer of the case and on completion of investigation, he submitted chargesheet.
5. From the evidence on record, it appears that PW.1 and PW.3 were the two eye-witnesses to the incident of assault. They stated specifically in their evidence that the incident took place in front of Kali temple. Accused Sentu Mal inflicted injuries on Charan and Mariram with the Trishul and when victim Pradip tried to escape, the accused chased him and assaulted him on his head with the same Trishul. The said two witnesses were cross-examined at length but nothing infirm could be elicited from their cross-examination to cast even a slightest doubt regarding the credibility of these two witnesses. PW.1, PW.3, PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6 had specifically stated in their evidence that the accused was apprehended by the villagers immediately after the incident while he was escaping. These witnesses corroborated each other that such apprehension was made in front of the house of accused Pradip. We do not find any reason to hold that there was any embellishment, distortion or conception of the fact with regard to the apprehension of the accused immediately after the incident. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of two eye-witnesses namely PW.1 and PW.3 and other corroborating witnesses as stated above. There is no reason as to why the said witnesses, who were the co-villagers, would falsely implicate the accused person leaving aside the actual culprit. There was no suggestion even of any motive for such false implication. On scrutiny of evidence of the witnesses, specially the evidence of two eye-witnesses (PW.1 and PW.3) coupled with the medical evidence of PW.9 and PW.10, which fits in with the ocular evidence of other P.Ws., we hold that the accused committed the offence in the manner and at the place as alleged by the prosecution.
6. Coming to the extra-judicial confession, we find that such confession was made by the accused immediately after he was apprehended and the same was made voluntarily. Such extra-judicial confession was also corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses.
7. It was argued by the learned Advocate of the appellant that from the evidence on record, it appears that the accused was under the influence of liquor at the time of incident. But such argument does not appeal to us. It is in the evidence that the accused was in the habit of taking liquor but there is nothing to show that he was under the influence of liquor at the time of assaulting the three innocent children. Even assuming that he was under the influence of liquor, such voluntary intoxication is not a plea recognized as an exception to criminal liability. The learned Advocate further argued that in the present case, the two injured children were the best witnesses. But the Investigating Officer of the case failed to examine those two witnesses and we do not find any merit in such submission. Both the children were aged about 5 years and it is in the evidence of the doctor (PW.9) that both of them were unconscious when they were examined by the doctor. In our considered view, non-examination of those two children does not affect the core of the prosecution case. The evidence of two eye-witnesses and other corroborating witnesses coupled with the medical evidence as also the extra-judicial confession made by the accused are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.
8. The learned Advocate of the appellant argued that in the present case, the prosecution failed to prove the motive behind committing such offence and in absence of such motive, the prosecution case should not be accepted. But we are unable to accept such contention. Prosecution is not to prove motive as it is known only to the accused, as it was held in case of State of Haryana v. Sher Singh . This is a case in which there are two eye-witnesses supported by the corroborating evidence of other witnesses including the medical evidence as also extra-judicial confession. In a case based on the circumstantial evidence, motive may be required to be proved but in a case in which there are eye-witnesses, and ocular evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, such motive is not required to be proved.
9. After appreciating the evidence on record, we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Judge does not suffer from any illegality. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.07.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Birbhum at Rampurhat in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 2001.
10. The appeal accordingly fails and the same is dismissed.
11. The accused appellant, who is in jail custody, shall serve out the remaining period of his sentence.
12. A copy of this judgment along with the LCR may be sent down to the Court below immediately.
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.
13. I agree.