K. S. Paripoornan, J. - (1.) THE appellants in this appeal, Prem Kumar Singh @ Prem Singh S/o Mundrika Singh and Ramesh Singh S/o Chandrika Singh, are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Sessions Trial No. 219 of 1983, Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau. THEy have filed this appeal against the affirmance of their conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, by the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, by judgment dated 8.9.1989. THE above two accused, along with one Mundrika Singh, accused No. 6, father of accused No. 1 Prem Singh, and eight others were charge-sheeted to stand Sessions Trial for the murder of one Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh on 13.1.1983 at 6.30 p.m. at a place known as Ketat. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were charged for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C for causing the murder of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. THEy were also charged for offence under Section 307/34, I.P.C. for attempting to cause murder of Ghanshyam Languri and Rajnath Tewari, two co-passengers, who boarded the bus along with Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. THE remaining nine accused persons were charged for offences under Section 302/149, I.P.C. Accused No. 6 Mundrika Singh was charged for offence under Section 147, I.P.C. also, whereas the ten other accused persons were further charged for offence under Section 148, I.P.C. read with section 27 of the Arms Act. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty for each of the charges framed against them. THE defence plea was that the death of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh in the bus, belonging to Santosh Transport Company, might have been caused at the hands of some unknown dacoits and the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the informant because of long drawn enmity between the parties. THE plea of alibi was also put forward by Accused Mo. 6 Mundrika Singh, Accused No. 1 Prem Singh, Accused No. 10 Raja Dixit and Accused No. 7 Muni Dixit. On an analysis of the entire evidence in the case, the Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau, by judgment dated 9.6.1987, held that on instigation given by Accused No. 6 Mundrika Singh to kill Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, the deceased. Accused No. 1 Prem Singh and Accused No. 2 Ramesh Singh intentionally caused the death of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh by firing at him with their rifles in consequence of which Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh died instantaneously on the spot. It was also found that In the same act, Accused Nos.1 and 2 also caused rifle shot injury on P.Ws. 5 and 6 knowing fully well that tin the circumstances, by their act of firing inside the bus, it was likely to cause the death of other passengers also and such act was an attempt to commit murder of P.Ws. 5 and 6. THE Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no evidence of any other attack by the remaining accused persons (other than Accused Nos.1, 2, and 6). THE offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act was also not proved against such persons. In the result Accused No. 6 Mundrika Singh was found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and convicted thereunder. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found guilty for offence under Section 302,I.P.C. for causing the murder of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh and they were convicted thereunder. THEy were also found guilty for offence under Section 307, I.P.C. for attempting to commit the murder of P.Ws. 5 and 6 and were accordingly convicted. Except accused Nos. 1 and 2 and 6, the other accused were not found guilty for any of the charges framed against them and they were acquitted and discharged from the liability of their respective bail bonds. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were sentenced to aprisonment for life under Section 302, I.P.C. Accused No. 6 was also sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for their conviction under Section 307, I.P.C. It was further held that both the sentences passed against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall run concurrently. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 filed Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1987 before the High Court of Patna, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi. A Division Bench of the High Court, after a very detailed discussion of the entire evidence, by Judgment dated 8.9.1989, acquitted accused No. 6 Mundrika Singh and confirmed the conviction of Accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. THE conviction of Accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 307, I.P.C. was set aside. THE High Court observed that the case of Accused No. 6 Mundrika Singh is not free from doubt and the case against him appears to be similar to the other co-accused, who were acquitted by the Sessions Judges. In this view, the conviction of Accused No. 6 Mundrika Singh, appellant No. 3 before the High Court, was set aside and he was acquitted of the charge. But as regards Accused Nos.1 and 2 the High Court came to the conclusion that though their conviction and sentence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code are liable to be set aside, their conviction and sentence under Section 302, I.P.C. were justified. It is against the aforesaid Judgment of the High Court dated 8.9.1989 Accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed the above Criminal Appeal before this court as per special leave granted in SLP (Cr.) No. 2059/89 dated 22.7.1991.
(2.) WE heard Sri Rajender Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Sri H.L. Agarwal, learned senior counsel for the respondent. Accused No. 6 Mundrika Singh and one Chandrika Singh are brothers. Accused No. 1 Prem Singh is the son of Mundrika Singh. Accused No. 2 Ramesh Singh is the son of Chandrika Singh. It is alleged that one Rajan, brother of Accused No. 1 Prem Singh and Bishwanath, brother of Accused No. 2 Ramesh Singh, were murdered by Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh and others on 2.10.1982. The case was still pending when the incident relevant to the instant case happened on 13.1.1983 at about 6.30 p.m. at Ketat. It is fairly clear from the evidence in the case, that enmity exists between the members of the appellants' family and those of the deceased family. The prosecution alleged that on 13.1.1983 after attending the hearing of the murder case of Rajan and Bishwanath at Daltonganj, Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh accompanied by Bashishth Narain Singh, P.W. 8, as also Sheo Pratap Singh and Ramadhar Pathak, boarded the bus bearing Registration No. BRO 3555 of Santosh Transport Company, for returning to Rehla at 5.30 p.m., and the bus stopped for a while at the stop of Ketat, when car bearing Registration No. W.M.B. 5989 came from behind and slopped in front of the bus. The time was about 6.30 p.m. Then Accused Nos.2 and 6 and their colleagues Satyender Singh, Munni Dixit got down from the car. Accused No. 6 was empty handed but the remaining persons were armed with rifles. In the meanwhile Jeep bearing Registration No. B.R.O. 2770, which also arrived from the side of Daltonganj, stopped in front of the bus. From that Jeep, Accused No. 1. armed with a rifle, and his colleagues Rajeshwar Singh, Bishwanath Singh, Parasuram Dixit, Basistha Dixit, Fakira Dixit and Chandrabhan Singh and two other unknown persons, all armed with guns alike, alighted. The accused and other co-culprits started proclaiming that as Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh was inside the bus, he should be cut into pieces. On hearing this, the passengers of the bus were struck with terror and started fleeing away. Passengers were in the process of getting down from front and rear entrances. At that time Accused Nos.1 and 2 came inside the bus from the front entrance. P.W. 8 Dudhnadh Singh, in order to hide his identity, had wrapped his face with the chadar and rushed towards the back door of the bus, when he saw Accused Nos.1 and 2 firing indiscriminately at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh In that firing Ram Raj Pandey P.W. 5, a forest guard, and Ghanshyam Languri P.W. 6. a police official, also received injuries. P.W. 8 Dudhnath Singh had by that time managed to get down from the bus like many other passengers and he concealed himself nearby in thick bushes. On knowing that Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh had died, the accused and others raised victory slogans and fled towards Daltonganj in their car and jeap. On hearing the news, Sub-Inspector Sachchidanand Deo, P.W. 14, entered the information as Entry No. 195 (Ex. 4) at 7.00 p.m. in Rehla Police Station and rushed to the place of occurrence, arriving there at 7.15 p.m. On seeing the police P.W. 8 Dudhnath Singh came out of the hiding and made a statement (Ex. 5) which was sent to the police station, Bishrampur and on this basis the case was registered vide F.I.R. (Ex. 7) at 9 p.m. P.Ws. 5 and 6 were transported to Daltonganj hospital. Though the search was made for culprits they were not found. The Sub-Inspector returned to the spot at about 1.30 a.m. and prepared the inquest report with respect to the dead body of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. He lifted three live gun cartridges vide seizure memo Ex. 9. P.W. 1 Bashishth Narain Singh and Bipin Bihari Singh attested the documents prepared at the spot. The dead body of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh was subjected to post-mortem examination by Dr. R. K. P. Pandey (P.W. 4). One Dr. K. Singh conducted medical examination of P.Ws. 5 and 6. Statements of driver, conductor and other witnesses were recorded. The accused surrendered in court and were arrested later and charge-sheeted. One of the accused Chandarbhan Singh was subsequently murdered on 23.6.1983. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 were sentenced and other accused were acquitted by Sessions Judge. The post-mortem examination of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh was conducted by P.W. 4 on 14.1.1983 at 10.50 a.m. at Sub-Divisional Hospital, Daltonganj. The record relating thereto discloses the following injuries : "1. Six oval lacerated wounds with inverted margins of the sizes varying from 1/4" to 1/2" in diameter on the middle and left side of the front of the chest; 2. One oval lacerated wound with inverted margins of the size 3/4" in diameter on the upper part of Uhe left side of abdomen with two metal pieces embodied in the wound ; 3. Three circular lacerated wounds with inverted margins of the sizes varying from 1/4" to 1/2" in diameter on the right shoulder with blackening of the skin around the wound. Fractures of the body of the external bones of third, fourth, fifth and sixth ribs and cartilages on the right side, as well as the fourth, fifth and sixth ribs and on the left side were noticed. The third and the fourth thorazix vertebra, the right of devicles, right scapula and the upper part of the numerous on the right side were also found fractured. Injury Nos.1 and 3 referred to above were wounds of entry, while injury No. 2 was the wound of exit. All the above injuries were caused by fire arms. Death of Tarkeshwar Singh had been caused by shock and hemorrhage as a result of above noted injuries. The time elapsed since death was with 12 to 18 hours of the post-mortem examination. All the injuries individually were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Ext. 3 is the postmortem examination." The medical examination of P.W. 5 Sam Raj Pandey on 13.1.1983 conducted by Dr. K. Singh disclosed the following : "Lacerated wound on left side of neck 1" x 1/2" surrounded by charring of skin. The X-ray plate dated 14.1.1983 showed a big oblique subset with small radio opaque particle, ft was a skin (deep) injury caused by a fire arm, may be a rifle. Age of the injury was within 24 hours. Ex. 2 is medico legal certificate." Dr. K. Singh, who examined P.W. 6 found the following injury: "One lacerated wound on left side of the shoulder 3" x 1". The depth could not be probed. This injury was surrounded by charring skin. The X-ray plate No. 41 dated 14.1.1983 showed three shots on the upper left side of back. It was simple in nature caused by a fire arm such as a rifle or gun. Age of the injury was within 12 hours. Ext. 2/1 is the medico legal certificate." As stated earlier, the plea of the appellants was that the prosecution allegations are untrue and that they were innocent. Accused Nos.1 and 6 and two other accused advanced the plea of alibi and examined D.Ws. 1 to 3 in support of the same. The said evidence did not find favour with the trial Court. The appellants also examined D.W. 4 Kuldip Roy and D.W. 5 Priya Brat Singh to show that Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh was ;a terror.
(3.) CERTAIN crucial aspects appearing in the case deserve to be highlighted. Tarkeshwar Prasad Siingh was shot dead inside the bus bearing Registration No. B.R.O. 3555 at the bus stop Ketat at about 6.30 p.m. on 13.1.1983. The deceased met with instantaneous death. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 5 and P.W. 8 are the eye-witnesses. P.W. 8 lodged F.I.R. on the same day at 7.30 p.m. P.W. 5. a forest guard, was a co-passenger and an independent witness. He also speaks about the incident and he was injured in the act of firing by Accused Nos.1 and 2. The post-mortem report and the evidence of P.W. 4 proves that the injury resulted due to shots of fire arms. There was, admittedly enmity between the family of the informants and that of the accused. Deceased Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, along with P.Ws. 1, 2, 8 and P.Ws. 5 and! 6, and few others was returning in the bus, belonging to Santosh Transport Company, on 13.1.1983, after attending the murder case of Rajan and Bishwanath. The prosecution states that Prem Singh and Ramesh Singh (Accused Nos.1 and 2), who came from behind in the jeep and the car along with few others, fired fatal shots at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh with their rifles in furtherance of common intention of the other accused persons, which caused the instantaneous death of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh. The courts below have concurrently held that the motive suggested by the prosecution against the accused persons is established. When there is sufficient direct evidence regarding the commission of the offence, the question of motive will not loom large in the mind of the court, lit is true that this Court has held in State of U. P. v. Moti Ram and others, 1990 (4) SCC 389, that in a case where the prosecution party and the accused party were in animosity on account of series of incidents over a considerable length of time, the motive is a double-edged weapon and the key question for consideration is whether the prosecution had convincingly and satisfactorily established the guilt of all or any of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by letting in reliable and cogent evidence. Very often, a motive is alleged to indicate the high degree of probability, that the offence was committed by the person, who was prompted by the motive. In our opinion, in a case when motive alleged against the accused is fully established, it provides a foundational material to connect the chain of circumstances. We hold that if motive is proved or established, it affords a key or pointer, to scan the evidence in the case, in that perspective and as a satisfactory circumstance of corroboration. It is a very relevant, and important aspect, (a) to highlight the intention of the accused and (b) the approach to be made in appreciating the totality of the circumstances, including the evidence disclosed in the case. The relevance of motive and the importance or value to be given to it are tersely stated by Shamsul Huda in delivering the Tagore Law Lectures (1902). The Principles of the Law of Crimes in British India, at page 176, as follows : "But proof of the existence of a motive is not necessary for a conviction for any offence. But where the motive is proved it is evidence of the evil intent and is also relevant to show that the person who had the motive to commit a crime actually committed it, although such evidence alone would not ordinarily be sufficient. Under Section 8 of the Evidence Act any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact." In these circumstances, the only crucial factor falls for determination is to see whether satisfactory evidence was available on record for bringing home the guilt of the appellants/accused persons. We shall discuss in brief the evidence of the four eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and 8, to the extent it is necessary to show how far the prosecution has established its case. The main arguments advanced before us on behalf of the appellants- accused are (a) P.Ws. 1 to 8 are not really eye-witnesses and they were not able to depose, who fired the final shot and when ; (b) the shot received by Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh is of the gun and not of the rifle as spoken to by the prosecution witness ; (c) there is inconsistency in the prosecution evidence, and what is more the statement in F.I.R. is not fully substantiated.;