SINGH, J. - (1.) BOTH these appeal arise from common judgment dated 21.8.1998 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment, copy of which may be retained in each file.
(2.) BY the impugned judgment accused appellant Sushil Kumar alias Shyam Kumar has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder of Hem Singh. He has also been convicted under Section 323/34 IPC for the simple injuries caused to Tejaram. Similarly, accused appellant Umed Singh has been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC as also under Section 323 IPC. Both the accused appellants are sentenced for life imprisonment for the murder of Hem Singh and simple imprisonment of three months for the simple injuries caused to Tejaram. Both the accused appellants are also fined Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 100/- in each count and in default thereof were to undergo six months and 15 days simple imprisonment respectively. Both the substantial sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The prosecution version is that on 5.11.1996 at 10.30 p.m. Hem Singh alongwith his son Doongar Singh PW-1 left Deedwana Salt Plant for their home town Pachpadara in order to catch bus from Deedwana bus stand. Tejaram PW-4 and Jalam Singh PW-3 were also accompanying them upto Deedwana bus stand. When they were proceedings towards the bus stand at about 11.00 p.m. both the accused appellants came from behind. Sushil Kumar gave a knife blow on the chest of Hem Singh whereas Umed Singh gave a lathi blow on the neck of Teja Ram PW-4. Thereafter both of them fled away. Hem Singh fell down due to the injuries and started bleeding. He was immediately taken to the hospital where was declared brought dead. Pw-1 Doongar Singh lodged written information Ex.P/1 at 11.15 p.m. upon which offence was registered. Autopsy on the dead body was done by Pw-7 Dr. Mahesh Jha. Accused persons were put under arrest on 6.11.96 vide Ex.P/28 and Ex.P/29. On 10.11.1996 vide Ex.P/37 disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence act was given by Sushil Kumar and wanted to recover a knife. On the same day vide recovery memo Ex.P/35 he got a knife recovered from his own residential house which was seized and sealed then and there. After usual investigation both the accused appellants were challenged and charged, but claimed trial hence nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 36 documents were exhibited. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. both the accused appellants denied all the averments of the prosecution case and pleaded innocent. Thereafter the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the manner stated above. Mr. Garg learned counsel for the accused appellants has took us into the evidence and tried to bring home that there was no motive to commit the crime, therefore, the evidence produced by the prosecution has to be scrutinised with more care and caution. His another contention was that Badrudeen. Ishwardeen and Tulshiram had important bearing on the prosecution case but have not been examined, therefore, the prosecution wanted to conceal some true facts from the Court and adverse inference may be taken. There were material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and they cannot be held to be of sterling worth. Lastly it was contended that only single knife injury was caused by Sushil Kumar and, therefore, at the most offence will not travel to Umed Singh it was submitted that he had no common intention with Sushil Kumar to commit the murder of Hem Singh and, therefore, at the most he could be convicted under Section 323 of the injuries caused by him to Tejaram.
(3.) ON the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and sentence. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and have perused the impugned judgment as also the evidence ocular and documentary available on the file. So far as the motive to commit crime is concerned, though it has not been mentioned in the FIR Ex.P/1 but PW-5 Yadvendra Singh Dubey, Manager, Salt Department, Deedwana has proved that the deceased was bill clerk in their office and Laxmi Narain, father of accused Sushil Kumar was also one of the employees there. Some bills of Laxmi Narain were not prepared by Hem Singh, therefore, he had a grudge against him. This witness has further stated that Laxmi Narain was absent from 26th October to 31st October. He has further proved Ex.P/13 to Ex.P/27 which are the arrear bills prepared by deceased. No effective cross examination was done on this witness and it has been proved that some pay bills and arrear bills of Laxmi Narain were pending with the deceased and, therefore, his son Sushil Kumar had a grudge against deceased. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel is not tenable. Even if a motive is not proved that by itself is not sufficient to throw the prosecution case over board because when there is direct evidence absence of motive pales into insignificance and the question of motive becomes more or less academic vide Data Singh vs. State of Punjab (1), Rajesh Govind Jogesha vs. State of Maharashtra (2). ;