S.K. Ray, J. - (1.)THE Appellant was convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for having committed murder by intentionally causing the death of one Tirtha Ganda in the early hours of the morning, i.e. 3 a. m. on 13/14 -5 -55 at village Machhida, and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Sessions Judge, sambalpur -Sundargarh. He has, therefore, preferred this appeal from jail.
(2.)PRIOR to the date of occurrence the Appellant was residing in village Badajha with his wife (P.W.7) and daughter. Adjoining this village is the village Machhida where the occurrence took place. The Bastis of these two villages are situated at a distance of about half a mile. There is a water reservoir known as Badajha Kata situated at a distance of about 60 yards from the village of occurrence inside a forest. That Kata is the only water source for the villagers of Machhida and is also used at times by the villagers of Badajha. Due to scarcity of water in the month fishing in such water would make the water muddy and unfit for drinking purpose, the Makadam of village Machhida (P.W.2) had prohibited fishing in that Kata. Despite this prohibition, it was found that the water of the said Kata was getting muddy. Machhida villagers suspected that some people were surreptitiously carrying on fishing in the said Kata during the night. So villagers of Machhida including P.W. 1 guarded the Kata during the night of one Wednesday preceding the date of occurrence and found that the Appellant along with some others were fishing therein. Villagers of Machhida attempted to apprehend them and all escaped except the Appellant who was apprehended by P.W. 1. When asked to come to village Machhida quietly the Appellant had refused and then been slapped by P.W. 2. The Appellant was then brought to village Machhida where a Panchayat was held on the following day i. e. Thursday where he gave an undertaking in writing not to fish in that Kata again. He was, therefore, let off and asked to leave the village. The Appellant, however, refused to return back to his village and stayed on at Machhida, first in the Dhenkisal and when driven out by force therefrom slept on the pinda of P.W. 2. The persistent determination of the Appellant to remain on the pinda of P.W. 2 apparently raised an apprehension in the latter's mind that the former intended to cause some harm to him and was abiding his time. So, on the Friday evening P.W. 2 finding the Appellant sleeping on his pinda and refusing to have the place asked the Chawkidar (P.W.6) and another villager (P.W.1) to sleep nearby and keep an eye on the Appellant. P. ws. 1 and 6, therefore, slept on two cots in the Khuli, that is, the village road adjoining his pinda where the accused was sleeping. Some time later, P.W. 1 left the place being required to watch over the grains in a nearby house. Seeing this P.W. 2 asked P.W. 9 to replace P.W. 1. But P.W. 9 sent his father -in -law, the deceased, instead who came and slept on the cot previously occupied by P.W. 1. During early hours of that night P.W. 6 heard a groaning sound and found that the Appellant was trying to pull out a Tangari which had got stuck on the lower half of the deceased's head. He, therefore, raised a hulla shouting that the Appellant had killed the deceased. Having faded to extricate the Tangari left embedded in the head of the deceased, and hearing this hulla, the Appellant ran away. P.w. 6 then chased the Appellant but could not find him. On return, P.W. 6 found the deceased dead. Subsequently, other villagers came to the spot and also found the deceased dead. P.w. 6 lodged F.I.R. on 14 -5 -1955 at Mura Police station (Rengali) in the district of Sambalpur. P.w. 13, the I.O., after recording the F.I.R. took up investigation, reached the spot at 4 p. m. the same day and held inquest over the dead body. He seized a cot and clothes along with other materials as per seizure list Ext. 2/1 and noted therein that a Tangari was sticking to the lower side of the back of the deceased's head. He despatched the dead body with the Tangari still sticking to the head to the District Head quarters Hospital, Sambalpur for postmortem examination. P.w. 11 conducted autopsy, but the postmortem report is not forthcoming. The I.O., however, submitted a final report in the case as the Appellant absconded and could not be arrested. The case was entered in the absconders' register and some of the prosecution witnesses were examined and their evidence recorded in the absence of the accused under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The accused was arrested about 16 years later on 27 -9 -1971 and thereafter charge -sheet was submitted by P.W. 12. Committal proceedings followed in due course and the Appellant was committed to the Court of session to stand his trial. Ultimately he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
The defence plea is one of total denial of his alleged complicity in the crime. He also denies his identify as Bilai Gardia who is alleged by the prosecution to have committed the murder.

(3.)THERE is no clear cut motive proved in this case. It transpires from the evidence that P.W. 1 apprehended him at Badajha Kata and P.W. 2 had slapped him there. If that is true, the Appellant would have some cause for anger against these two people. His persistence in staying in the house of P.W. 2 and refusing to leave village Machhida and, as appears from the evidence of P.W. 7, his determination to wreak vengeance on those who humiliated him, specially P.W. 2, provide some sort of moth -e, however weak, against PWs. 1 and 2. But there is no evidence of motive at all against the deceased. Motive or no motive, if the prosecution evidence is clear, cogent and categorical implicating the Appellant to the full conviction is bound to follow. Absence of proof of clear motive, however; will benefit the accused if the prosecution evidence is otherwise weak.