M. L. SHRIMAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated April, 1978, of learned Sessions Judge, Kota, whereby the accused appellant Kishan son of Gordhan Singh was convicted on the charge of murder of Balli Sardar alias Amarjeet Singh and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/- or, in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for two months.
(2.) THE prosecution story in nut-shell is that Kailash Chandra PW 1 runs a betel shop in the name and style of Pawan Pan Bhandar situate near the temple of Mori Ka-Hanumanji in purani Dhanmandi, Kota. His brother Subhash's hotel is situated adjacent to his shop. In the morning of the fateful day Kailash Chandra and his brother Subhash reached their respective shops. Jugal Kishore (PW 3) and Ramesh (PW 4) were sitting on the wooden platform of the said shop of Kailash Chandra. Narain a servant of Subhash served tea to Jugal Kishore and Ramesh. He then went away to serve tea at the office of Ram Krishana Transport Company. A little later, Amarjeet Singh deceased and Surendra Kumar (PW 5) arrived that side, riding on a bicycle. Surendra Kumar was driving the bicycle and Amarjeet Singh was sitting on the rod in front of him. When they reached near Pawan Pan Bhandar, accused appellant Kishan rushed towards the deceased and thrust a knife blow in his chest. After taking out the knife, the accused ran away towards Purani Dhan Mandi. As a result of the injury, Amarjeet Singh felt giddy and fell down on the ground near a tree. A written report, Ex. P/l of this occurrence was lodged at the Police Station, Rampura Kotwali, Kota. On the basis of that report a formal F. I. R. , Ex. p/3, was drawn. The police reached the site of occurrence and prepared site plan Ex. p4, and inquest report Ex. p/l3 respectively. Autopsy on the dead body of Amarjeet Singh was performed by Dr. S. S. Baxi PW 10. The post mortem report is Ex. p/9. On November 26, 1977 the investigating officer arrested the accused-appellant vide arrest memo Ex. p/l7. The accused expressed his desire to get the weapon of offence recovered from the place of concealment. The information was reduced into writing. It has been marked as Ex, p/18. Knife, Ex. 1 is said to have been discovered in consequence of this information. It was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex, p/15. The accused-appellant again expressed his desire to get the blood stained clothes bushirt and pent recovered from the place of their concealment. The information was reduced into writing and it has been marked as Ex. p/l9. The seizure memo of pent and bushirt Exs. 6 and7 respectively is Ex. p/16 The articles recovered in consequence of the information of the accused and clothes of the deceased were sent for chemical examination, who found the articles stained with blood. The report of the Chemical Examiner is Ex. p/20. The police after usual investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant and one Subhash in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kota, who committed them to the court of Session for trail. Learned Sessions Judge discharged accused Subhash and framed charge against the accused appellant under Section 302 I. P. C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution examined 14 witnesses in support of their case, out of whom PW1 Kailash Chandra, PW 3 Jugal Kishore, PW 4 Ramesh, PW 5 Surendra Kumar and PW 6 Prabhu Lal were examined as eye witnesses of the occurrence. PW 10 Dr. S. S. Baxi was examined to prove the injuries sustained by the deceased. PW 14 Samrath Singh Station House Officer is the Investigating Officer of the case. Out of the six eye witnesses all except PW 3 Jugal Kishore were declared hostile and were allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution case against the accused was proved beyond doubt. She totally believed the statement of PW 3, PW 6 Prabhu Lal, PW 5 Surendra Kumar and PW 4 Ramesh. The discovery of the knife Ex. 1, pent Ex. 6 and Bushirt Ex. 7 was not relied upon as the Serologist could not ascertain the origin of the blood. After considering the above noted evidence, she held the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, the convicted accused appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence by this appeal.
(3.) MR. K. K. Mehrishi, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has urged that there are some out-standing features of the case which, according to him, are sufficient to throw doubt on the entire prosecution case. There is no evidence of motive for commission of the crime by the accused-appellant. At best, the prosecution evidence shows that the accused appellant did not like the deceased and had petty quarrel with him which cannot be considered sufficient to constitute motive to commit murder. Learned counsel urged that the prosecution witnesses were detained by the police for two days and their statements were recorded against their wishes. The investigating officer was not fair to the accused. He compelled PW 1 Kailash Chandra to write down Ex. P/l at the dictation of the investigating officer after completing the preliminaries of the investigation. The story narrated in the first information report itself suggests that it was not written at the time it purported to have been written. It is ante-dated. It was vehemently urged that PW 3 Jugal Kishore is an unreliable witness. He had no reason to be on the scene of occurrence. He could not have been present at the time of the alleged assault by the accused, because at the relevant time he was with DW 1 Maheshi Kumar at Railway Station. PW 3 Jugal Kishore did not know the accused by name and as such his identification of the accused for the first time in the Court without any test identification parade is absolutely valueless. He further urged that the prosecution had discredited PW 1 Kailash Chandra, PW 2 Subhash Chandra, PW4 Ramesh, PW5 Surendra Kumar and PW 6 Prabhu Lal and cross-examined them. They were discredited altogether not merely to get rid of a part of their testimony and no corroboration could be sought from the testimony of such witnesses. PW3 Jugal Kishore who is the only witness against the accused to prove the serious charge of murder, had modulated his evidence to suit a particular prosecution theory for the deliberate purpose of securing conviction of the accused. Such a witness cannot be considered as a reliable person and no conviction can be based on his sole testimony. The conduct of this witness was abnormal. He neither went to the father of the deceased nor to the police and immediately left for his work without caring to know the nature of the injury sustained by the deceased who was very well known to him since childhood. The common course of human conduct require that either he would have raised a cry for help or would have rushed after the accused to catch hold of his or at least would have taken the injured to the hospital for providing him the first aid. He further urged that the first information report Ex. P/3 was received by the Magistrate on November 24, 1977, i. e. after 24 hours of the occurrence. This inordinate delay in despatch of the first information report was recorded much later than the date and time stated therein. It afforded sufficient opportunity to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of the occurrence. Learned counsel urged that in the case in hand most of the prosecution witnesses have admitted that they were detained by the police for more than 24 hours and as such in the proved circumstances of the case it can be safely said that the prosecution at first settled the story, compelled the witnesses to make statements fitting with the case set up by them and thereafter recorded the first information report. Learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Khan with matching vehemence has supported the judgment of the trial Court on the basis of evidence relied upon by learned Sessions Judge as well as additional grounds. It is not incumbent on the prosecution to prove the motive for a crime. Often times, a motive is inducted to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by that motive. But if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in with the alleged motive. From the statements of PW 8 Ram Narain and PW 9 Hari Prakash it appears that accused and the deceased were notorious, known as 'dadas' (Bad character) of their area. They were at quarrel with each other. PW 9 Hari Prakash stated that nearly 15 days prior to the fateful day he saw the accused appellant and the deceased quarrelling with each other in Dhanmandi. On the night previous to the date of this murder, the accused was seen by the witness loitering in the area where the deceased used to reside. PW 8 Ram Narain stated that he had seen the accused and the deceased quarrelling with each other at Sarowar Talkies, nearly 7 or 8 days prior to this murder. He had also seen them quarrelling with each other 3 or 4 days prior to the fateful date in the locality known as Chhipa pada. The witness further goes on to state that he had seen them quarrelling 3 or 4 times, but he did not inquire from them regarding the cause of quarral, as both of them were Dadas (bad character ). Learned Sessions Judge has believed the statements of these two witnesses. She was not correct in holding that these quarrels would not have afforded sufficient motive for committing the murder. Motives of men are often subjective. Often the motive is looked up in the heart of the offender. Similar events effect different persons in different ways and they react differently. The bad characters live by the exhibiting their superiority against each other. The circumstances of the case stand supported by the evidence of the motive given by these two witnesses. ;