Failure to prove motive

In doing so, Court has to keep in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities to find out whether such discrepancies shake the truthfulness of the witness

Some discrepancies not touching core of the case are not enough to reject evidence as a whole

It is normal human conduct that while narrating a particular incident there may occur minor discrepancies

Parrot-like statements are always discredited by Courts

In order to ascertain as to whether discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to be made to circumstances of the case

There are always normal discrepancies

Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person

Both the Courts below while appreciating evidence on record in its true perspective arrived at the right conclusion by holding accused guilty of committing murder of his father and brother

Supreme Court converted death sentence of accused into imprisonment for life on two counts as prosecution had failed to prove motive

Appeal was dismissed.

Motive can be considered as a mitigating circumstance in awarding punishment.

Absence or weakness of motive does not render case of prosecution false or fabricated and it is not requirement of law to prove the same by all means, however, if the prosecution asserts a motive but fails to prove the same then such failure on the part of prosecution may react against its case.

Delay of four and a half hours existed in reporting the alleged crime to police and no explanation for such delay was provided by witnesses of ocular account

Autopsies were conducted after 12 hours from occurrence, and such delay in setting machinery of law in motion spoke volumes against veracity of prosecution version

Statement of injured victim under S. 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded four days after occurrence, and such delay was without any plausible occurrence and mere fact that such witness was injured in occurrence would not stamp him as truthful witness

Evidence of eye-witnesses to alleged occurrence was shaky in nature and could not be relied on for maintaining conviction of accused

Complainant and other witnesses of ocular account did not utter any word regarding alleged lalkara raised by accused and in examination-in-chief did not state motive alleged by prosecution, and therefore it had to be held that alleged motive was not proved by prosecution

Ocular account was in direct conflict with medical evidence

Case against accused was therefore replete with number of circumstances which created doubt regarding prosecution's story and same was sufficient to give benefit of doubt to accused

High Court set aside conviction and sentence of accused and acquitted them while extending benefit of doubt

Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

Failure to establish motive on part of the prosecution may react upon sentence of death.

If prosecution sets up a motive and fails to prove it, then it is the prosecution who is to suffer and not the accused.

If prosecution set up a motive, and failed to prove the same, then, it was the prosecution, which was to suffer and not accused.

When motive was alleged, but not proved, then ocular evidence, was required to be scrutinized with great caution.

Motive would cut both ways, if enmity would persuade a person to commit a crime, then it was also sufficient to falsely implicate same person from the other side.

Where motive as alleged by the prosecution had not been proved successfully, same might be considered as a mitigating circumstance qua quantum of sentence.

Prosecution witnesses had stated that accused had no motive to kill the deceased and they had not actually seen accused firing at the deceased

Evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses was full of inconsistencies and no corroborative evidence of independent witnesses, other than that of relatives of the deceased, was brought forward to prove that accused actually fired at the deceased

Prosecution witnesses who claimed to have seen the accused firing at the deceased had not come forward and deposed

Prosecution witnesses, who were relatives of the deceased, deposed that they heard the fire shots while sitting elsewhere and at the same time they had also stated that they saw the accused shooting at the deceased

Mere number of prosecution witnesses was not the deciding factor, but it was the quality and worth of evidence given by the witnesses which mattered

Weapon and bullet recovered after twenty (20) days of the incident had admittedly not been sealed on the spot as required under the law, and same was produced in court in broken condition

Tampering or change of weapon, in circumstances, could not be ruled out

Weapon had not been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and ballistic expert report was not produced, therefore, the presumption was that such report was never obtained

Despite recovery of weapon, bullet and empties, the most crucial evidence, i.e. report of ballistic expert had not been obtained, benefit of which had to go to the accused

Impugned judgment of acquittal required no interference and, accordingly, appeal against was dismissed.

Qatl-e-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, other hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Suspension of sentence

Failure to prove motive

Effect

Where the motive had been disbelieved by the Trial Court, the accused was entitled for suspension of sentence.