Motive not proved

According to that witness, the petitioners-convicts were serving as gunmen/guards of the SSP and the deceased had developed a relationship with niece of the Personal Assistant of the said SSP, on which the Personal Assistant of the SSP was displeased and that due to this alleged grudge, the deceased was murdered by the petitioners-convicts at the instigation of the Personal Assistant of SSP

No sufficient or convincing evidence was found on record to substantiate said assertion of father of the deceased

Mere bald allegation without solid proof and evidence would not be sufficient to believe the motive advanced by the father of the deceased

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond the shadow of doubt, however, the ingredients of the offence under Section 302(c), P.P.C., were attracted in the present case rather than those of Section 302(b), P.P.C.

Convictions under Section 302(b), P.P.C., were converted into Section 302(c), P.P.C., and accused were sentenced to undergo 15-years imprisonment

Petition was converted into appeal and disposed of, accordingly.

Qatl-i-amd, causing damage or loss of fifty rupees or more through mischief, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Reappraisal of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Motive not proved

Accused-petitioner was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing

Motive behind the occurrence was that earlier, son of complainant had injured petitioner by making fire shots, therefore, due to the said grudge, the occurrence of that case was committed by the petitioner and his co-accused

Motive was disbelieved by the High Court because the son of the complainant was the best witness to prove the alleged motive but he was not produced in the witness box

No other tangible evidence was produced to prove the alleged motive, hence the same was rightly disbelieved by the High Court

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record showed that in appellant's retracted confession, he stated that his motive for committing the murder was to cause the complainant grief because they had earlier exchanged bitter words

Similarly, the Investigating Officer stated that earlier on while the police interrogated the appellant, he admitted to committing the crime due to strained relations with the complainant, i.e. the deceased's father, and the complainant's brother, i.e. the deceased's uncle

Both of the complainant's brothers were present during that interrogation

Complainant's brother also submitted in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that the appellant had committed the crime on account of some heated exchange with the complainant

Later, complainant's brother disclaimed his earlier statement, updating his story by mentioning that no harsh words were exchanged between the complainant and the appellant rendering the exact motive doubtful

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

High Court had thoroughly thrashed out the matter in detail and had rightly arrived at the conclusion that the aspect of motive was missing in the instant matter and only then had converted the death sentence into a life sentence

Where the aspect of motive was missing in any case, the death sentence was usually not awarded

Since it had been established that the aspect of motive was missing, awarding the death sentence would be quite harsh

Therefore, Supreme Court did not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment passed by the High Court, which was based on sound reasoning and did not call for any interference

Petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed.

Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant by striking a cemented block on his head

There was no record or proof of the petitioner allegedly teasing or having quarreled with the deceased, in fact, one of the witnesses, stated that "the deceased and the accused were close friends and that fact was disclosed to him by other students

Moreover, none of the students had deposed that the accused and the deceased had any quarrel with each other in the past

Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and accused was acquitted of the charges.

Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he along with his co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries

As per contents of the FIR, the motive behind the occurrence was an old enmity between the parties

Even the motive was jointly alleged against the petitioner and his two co-accused

Vague and ambiguous motive regarding old enmity was alleged in the contents of the FIR and no detail of the said enmity was given therein

However, a witness had stated during his cross-examination that his daughter was married with the nephew of the petitioner, who was son of co-accused (since P.O) and his daughter was murdered by the accused party

Admittedly the daughter of the complainant was not married with the son of the present petitioner

Complainant himself admitted in his cross-examination that petitioner was let off by the police in the said earlier case, which showed that the petitioner was not found involved in the said earlier case by the police

Under the circumstances, there was no motive with the petitioner to commit the occurrence

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and was allowed accordingly, and petitioner was acquitted of the charge.

Motive behind the occurrence was that there was a dispute regarding amount of cement blocks between the deceased and the accused

Motive was jointly alleged against petitioner and co-accused that they had a dispute with deceased regarding an amount of cement blocks

It was not brought on the record as to whether deceased had to pay any amount to the petitioner and his co-accused or the petitioner had to pay any amount to the deceased

It was not stated that who out of the two (02) accused or the deceased was running the business of sale and purchase of cement blocks

Rather complainant admitted during his cross-examination that neither the deceased nor the accused were having any business of blocks

Specific amount, which was the bone of contention between the parties, had also not been brought on the record

Vague and ambiguous motive was alleged by the prosecution witnesses

Petitioner was a minor of the age of 17 years, at the time of occurrence, therefore, it was not expected that he was running the alleged business at such a tender age

Thus, the motive as alleged by the prosecution had not been proved in this case against the petitioner

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond the shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Lack of motive or the prosecution's inability to prove motive does not preclude the imposition of the normal penalty of death if the prosecution has otherwise successfully established its case against the accused

Motive "shrouded in mystery" does not serve as a mitigating circumstance for reducing the sentence

Therefore, the prosecution's case remained robust despite the lack of a clearly defined motive, supporting the argument for a conviction based on the evidence at hand

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances, however, the revision petition filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence was allowed by enhancing the sentence from life imprisonment to capital punishment of death.

Prosecution alleged motive to be a dispute between the accused and the deceased over a joint grocery business, however, it did not succeed in establishing the alleged motive and even no independent witness was produced in that respect

Prosecution in all circumstances was to prove the same

When the prosecution did not succeed in establishing the motive, then it was for the prosecution to suffer

Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the case against the appellant

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Complainant while lodging report alleged that motive for the crime was constituted due to dispute over landed property but the same could not be proved at the trial despite giving her opportunity of producing the copy of report or investigation conducted in the matter

Thus, the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the motive through confidence inspiring evidence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Motive behind the occurrence was that the complainant filed a complaint against the accused one year ago, due to that grudge, present occurrence took place

In support of the motive, the prosecution examined Head Constable of police station, who produced copy of an application submitted by the complainant to the SHO on 22.3.2018

In the application, the complainant voiced his grievance that the appellant was teasing the victim when the latter went to school

Court Witness deposed that the application was assigned to him for consideration as he was able to resolve the issue due to which the complainant didn't pursue the matter

To that effect, complainant recorded a statement in the police station in the presence of witnesses

One of the witnesses of that statementremained silent on the motive

Other witnesses were not produced

Despite all this, motive, as a double-edged weapon, could be used either way

In the circumstances of the case even if the motive was believed to be true, it also could not be considered sufficient proof of the charge

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused-appellants were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant and causing injuries to the complainant and his brother through sticks and pickaxe blows

Motive behind the occurrence was alleged by prosecution to be a dispute over excavation of sand from landed property

During the course of lengthy and searching cross-examination on behalf of defence, motive part of the case could not be shattered

Even otherwise, motive is a double-edged weapon which cuts both sides in like manner

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged that he made firing upon complainant party, due to which maternal uncle of complainant was hit and died, whereas complainant escaped unhurt

In respect of the motive, though, during investigation, the Investigating Officer had brought on record, a copy of deed pertaining to compromise between father of respondent accused and one "MM", however, no evidence was available on record to show how the said deed was concerned with the deceased and that how the said event formed a motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased

Thus the motive too had not been proved by the prosecution

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prosecution alleged motive to be altercation between husband of the complainant and deceased/brother of the appellant, however, it did not succeed in establishing the alleged motive and even no independent witness was produced in that respect

Prosecution when it did not succeed in establishing the motive, then it was for the prosecution to suffer

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Neither any motive was set out in the crime report nor any reason was explained by the complainant by appearing in the witness box for committing the murder of deceased by the appellant

However, it had not adversely affected upon the case of the prosecution as the motive was not sina qua non for the commission of the offence

There were many instances where the crime was committed without any motive, as such lack of motive alone could not be made basis for acquittal of an accused

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Said versions clearly showed that the motive introduced by the prosecution was nothing except words of mouth and the prosecution failed to bring on record any independent and confidence inspiring evidence to prove the motive in that case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Motive of the occurrence as stated by complainant in his written application was that the appellants had developed an illicit liaison and as the deceased discovered the said relationship, therefore, both the appellants committed his murder

However, the witnesses failed to prove the motive of the occurrence as stated by them

Complainant admitted during cross-examination that he himself had never seen the appellants in the company of each other and further admitted that even the deceased had not ever reported the matter of illicit relationship of the appellants with each other to the police

Similarly, the witness also admitted that he himself had never witnessed the appellants in the company of each other

Other witness also admitted that he had no knowledge about the relationship of the appellants with each other

Another witness also admitted the lack of any knowledge regarding the relationship of the appellants with each other

Investigating Officer of the case also did not collect any evidence in support of the alleged motive of the occurrence

It was an admitted fact that the deceased had contracted marriage with the co-appellant about fourteen years prior to the occurrence and was also living with the co-appellant at the time of occurrence

There was no evidence on record that deceased was facing any threat to his life at the hands of the appellants prior to the occurrence rather to the contrary he was living with the co-appellant till his tragic death

Co-appellant and deceased were blessed with the birth of as many as two children, which proved that the co-appellant and the deceased were having a happy and a healthy marital life and hence there did not exist any reason for the co-appellant to have murdered her loving husband

Prosecution witnesses failed to provide evidence enabling to determine the truthfulness of the motive alleged and the fact that the said motive was so compelling that it could have led the appellant to have committed the qatl-i-amd of the deceased

There was a poignant hush with regard to the particulars of the motive alleged

No independent witness was produced by the prosecution to prove the motive as alleged

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Motive of the occurrence as stated by the eye-witnesses in their statements recorded by the Trial Court was that the appellant suspected that the deceased had given information to the police about the brother of the appellant who thereafter was killed in an encounter with the police

Statements of the eye-witnesses showed that the motive as alleged could not be proved

During cross-examination, both the eye-witnesses admitted that neither the deceased nor the witnesses had reported the matter of deceased facing threats to his life at the hands of the appellant

Investigating Officer of the case, also did not collect any evidence with regard to the motive of the incident so as to establish that there was any grievance developing in the heart of the appellant as against the deceased which motivated him to act in the manner in which he did

Prosecution witnesses failed to provide evidence enabling to determine the truthfulness of the motive alleged and the fact that the said motive was so compelling that it could have led the appellant to have committed the qatl-i-amd of the deceased

There was a haunting silence with regard to the minutiae of motive alleged

No independent witness was produced by theprosecution to prove the motive as alleged

Even otherwise a tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate another tainted piece of evidence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Perusal of the motive aspect of the prosecution's case revealed that that at the time of registration of FIR, in the private complaint, and throughout the trial, a specific motive was presented

According to that, on 16.02.2019, son of deceased, fired a pistol shot at acquitted accused, for which both deceased and his son were challaned

In this context, it was noted that the motive was ascribed to accused, since acquitted and not to the appellant

Complainant during cross-examination admitted that appellant/accused had no previous litigation with them

Similarly, Investigating Officer during the course of his evidence further made it clear that appellant/accused had no personal enmity with the deceased

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Motive of the occurrence as stated by the prosecution witnesses was that the appellant had developed illicit relations with female "Z" since acquitted, who was the wife of deceased and therefore he murdered both the deceased

Perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses revealed that they failed to prove the motive of the occurrence as narrated by them in their statements before the Trial Court

Prosecution witnesses admitted that they had not mentioned the existence of the motive in their previous statements recorded by the police during the investigation of the case

Complainant during cross-examination, admitted that in complaint, he did not mention any motive of the occurrence

Other witness admitted during cross- examination that in his statement to the police he did not mention the motive of illicit relations between "Z" and accused appellant

Another witness admitted during cross-examination that he did not mention the motive of illicit relations between "Z" and appellant

Such portions of the statements of prosecution witnesses clearly proved that the prosecution witnesses failed to provide evidence enabling this Court to determine the truthfulness of the motive alleged

Said witnesses failed to prove the fact that the said motive was so compelling that it could have led the appellant to have committed the qatl-i-amd of the deceased

There was a haunting silence with regard to the minutiae of motive alleged

No independent witness was produced by the prosecution to prove the motive as alleged

Moreover, it was an admitted rule of appreciation of evidence that motive was only a supportive piece of evidence and if the ocular account was found to be unreliable then motive alone could not be made basis of conviction

Even otherwise a tainted piece of evidence could not corroborate another tainted piece of evidence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah badi'ah, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Motive not proved

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the wife of complainant and caused injuries to the witness

As per case of prosecution, it was alleged that earlier the complainant got lodged FIR No.321/2020 under Ss.376 & 396-A, P.P.C, against accused

However, on one hand, it was mentioned by the complainant himself in the application for registration of the case that compromise took place between the parties in the said case

Whereas on the other hand, deceased made statement in said case that she was not abducted by anyone

When deceased had given statement in Court in said case that neither anyone abducted her nor anyone had committed rape with her, then there was no question of having any grudge of accused with said lady, who had not given statement against him rather had given statement in his favour

So motive alleged by the complainant did not appeal to a prudent mind rather there was an affidavit of complainant, in which he clearly stated that he had himself expelled his wife after beating her and application given by him regarding abduction of his wife against accused was false and baseless

Thus, motive alleged in this case could not be established by the prosecution

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, mischief by killing or maiming cattle of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees, shajjah-i-hashimah, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Motive not proved

Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died and five persons sustained firearm injuries

Motive set out in the FIR was that on 17.05.2017 brother of complainant/witness had purchased a piece of land measuring 21-Marlas from one "SA" due to which the accused-party had nourished grudge

In this regard, it was observed that though all the witnesses of ocular account stated in their statements regarding the motive part of the incident, however no documentary evidence was produced by the prosecution

Besides that "SA" from whom brother of the complainant/witness purchased the property in dispute was not associated during investigation nor he was produced during trial

Said aspect was candidly admitted by Investigating Officer

Thus, it could conveniently be held that prosecution could not prove its motive part of the case

Once the motive is set up by the prosecution and the same is not proved, the prosecution shall suffer

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for making indiscriminate firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died and one person sustained firearm injury

Complainant had disclosed the motive stating that prior to the happening of the occurrence, the appellants and his co-accused beat the prosecution witness as his cow grazed in the field of the accused persons

From the perusal of whole prosecution evidence, it was nowhere available on record that the deceased had any enmity with the appellants rather the witness should have been the prime target of the assailants whereas the deceased had no concern or dispute with the assailants which could have led to his murder at the hands of the appellants and their co-accused

Furthermore, according to the complainant and injured witness, they were in clear view at a meager distance from the assailants and unarmed, whereas the appellants and their co-accused were allegedly armed with firearm weapons

There was no dearth of ammunition nor intent and opportunity on part of the appellants or their co-accused for doing away with the injured witness, their main adversary, but it who the deceased who was killed

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Motive behind the occurrence statedly was that one "AJ" had a money dispute with the accused, for which deceased stood as an arbitrator and decided it to the effect that nothing was payable from "AJ"

To prove the motive it was very easy for the complainant to bring "AJ" in the witness box to substantiate and corroborate him

Non-production of "AJ" by the complainant without any justification or reasonable excuse amounted to withholding of material evidence from the Court

In such a situation, this Court had no other option but to hold that he would not have supported the prosecution case if "AJ" was brought before the Court

Furthermore, during cross- examination, complainant categorically admitted that neither he described the nature and details of the dispute nor produced any document to the Investigating Officer

In such a way, the prosecution could not prove the motive against the appellant

Once the motive is set up by the prosecution and the same is not proved, the prosecution shall suffer

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Although the prosecution had set up a motive that the appellant and his family were demanding the hand of complainant's sister but complainant's mother/deceased refused for which the accused nourished a grudge

Complainant in his cross-examination admitted that "AB" was the same lady with whom motive part was related and "AB" was married prior to alleged occurrence

Complainant further admitted that "AB" got married 20/25 days prior to the alleged occurrence and it was her love marriage whereas the other family members were not happy with her marriage

Other eye-witness admitted in his cross-examination that "AB", his niece, contracted Court marriage with "YP" about 10/15 days prior to the occurrence

Said witness also admitted that one sister of "AB" was married to the brother of accused who had four kinds

Said witness also admitted that in his presence motive occurrence did not take place

Thus, the prosecution had not established the motive

If the appellant did have motive to kill the deceased, then why did he not do the same in the past when he and his family were demanding the hand of complainant's sister for the last one year

Thus, in the absence of any other corroborating evidence, it did not appear to be a sound and reasonable motive as stated by the prosecution for the commission of the offence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution had to suffer if it set up a motive but failed to prove the same.

Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offenders, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Motive not proved

Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant

Motive behind the occurrence was that appellant "H" had developed illicit relations with appellant "D" whereas deceased used to forbid his wife (appellant "H") but she did not mend her ways and ultimately, both the appellants along with 2/3 unknown persons committed the murder of the deceased

Admittedly, the motive part of incident was based on oral assertions and no solid evidence in that regard was produced by the prosecution during the trial

There was a haunting silence with regard to the minutiae of motive alleged

No place of motive incident had been mentioned by any of the prosecution witnesses and they had not claimed that they were present at the time of occurrence of motive incident

No independent witness was produced by the prosecution to prove the motive as alleged

Moreover, it was an admitted rule of appreciation of evidence that motive was only supportive piece of evidence and if the ocular account was found to be unreliable then motive alone could not be made basis of conviction

Even otherwise a tainted piece of evidence could not corroborate another tainted piece of evidence

Thus, prosecution had failed to prove the motive part of the occurrence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Main stance of prosecution for committing murder of deceased was a dispute about existence of first marriage of the accused/appellant whose first wife was also living in the same house and prosecution witnesses claimed that due to such reason deceased usually had quarrels with the accused/appellant but no such material was brought on record with respect to such dispute between the spouses and going to the house of accused/appellant by two witnesses in order to resolve the issue was also without any substance because neither any call was made by the deceased nor they had heard about any quarrel between the spouses on that day

Prosecution had also not produced any witness who could have supported the fact of quarrel between the spouses nor the investigator had conducted the investigation on that aspect of the matter

Thus, motive in this case remained shrouded in mystery

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Motive set up by complainant in private complaint was that a quarrel took place between deceased and appellant etc. at noon time on the day of occurrence and due to that grudge, the accused persons with their common object committed murder of deceased

Notable that the prosecution had not led any substantial evidence in that regard, therefore, mere oral assertion of eye-witnesses in that regard could not be considered enough to prove the motive part of prosecution's case

Prosecution evidence was completely silent as to where and in whose presence the alleged altercation took place at noon time before the occurrence, hence, the prosecution had failed to prove the motive and actual circumstances due to which the appellant had taken such an extreme step against the deceased which remained shrouded in mystery

Circumstances established that the prosecution otherwise proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt, however, due to some mitigating circumstances, death sentence was altered to imprisonment for life

With said modification in sentence, appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Motive asserted by the prosecution was registration of an earlier case due to land dispute against deceased by one "AZ" thus complainant suspected that said persons and others abetted the occurrence but while appearing in the dock complainant admitted that they did not have any rivalry/enmity with the appellant

Even otherwise, complainant stated that they had suspicion about the involvement of accused persons in the instant case, so, he initially nominated them and now he had been satisfied that they had nothing to do with that occurrence

In the absence of proof of motive, the real cause behind the murder remained shrouded in mystery and it could not be ascertained that what actually had happened at the spot which prompted the accused/appellant to take life of an innocent person, with whom apparently he was not carrying any grudge or grouse

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, causing damage or loss of fifty rupees or more through mischief, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Motive not proved

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the father of complainant

As per prosecution's own case, on 18.12.2007 at about 04:00 p.m. when the son of complainant was affixing election banners, acquitted co-accused forbade him, upon which an altercation took place between them and thereafter at 06:30 p.m. after about two hours and thirty minutes, the occurrence took place

Altercation took place between the son of the complainant and one of the co-accused but it was very surprising as well as not understandable that instead of murdering said son of complainant, the accused persons committed the qatl-e-amd of father of complainant, aged about 70/75 years, the grandfather of said son of complainant with whom no ill-will or any enmity had been brought on the record by the prosecution, whereas at the time of occurrence, complainant was also at the mercy of the accused persons who did not cause him even a single scratch to him

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing and also causing fire arm injuries to the complainant

Motive behind the occurrence of this case, as stated by the eye-witnesses in their statements before the Trial Court, was that Mst. "S" the wife of deceased was enticed away by the appellant, however, thereafter disputes arose between the appellant and Mst. "S" whereafter the appellant left Mst. "S", after beating her

Perusal of the record revealed that the said Mst. "S", never even joined the investigation of the case and moreover the eye-witnesses made contradictory statements with regard to the marital status of Mst. "S"

Investigating Officer of the case did not collect any evidence with regard to the motive of the occurrence

Eye-witnesses failed to provide evidence enabling the Court to determine the truthfulness of the motive alleged and the fact that the said motive was so compelling that it could have led the appellant to have committed the qatl-i-amd of the deceased

There were haunting contradictions with regard to the minutiae of motive alleged

No independent witness was produced by the prosecution to prove the motive as alleged

Moreover, it was an admitted rule of appreciation of evidence that motive was only a corroborative piece of evidence and if the ocular account was found to be unreliable, then motive alone could not be made the basis of conviction

Even otherwise, a tainted piece of evidence could not corroborate another tainted piece of evidence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record showed that the motive was canvassed as the registration of two criminal cases i.e. FIR No.116/2014 under Ss.324,109 & 34, P.P.C, and FIR No.297/2017 under S.324, P.P.C, both registered, against the appellant and in both the cases he was proclaimed offender

In that regard, it was observed that in support of projected motive, except oral assertion, no material was placed on record

Registration of previous criminal cases, purportedly registered against the appellant, could easily be proved by tendering in evidence the copies of FIRs

What to talk of placing on record the copies of said FIRs, the witnesses failed to give its particulars while appearing before the Trial Court

Furthermore, complainant during cross-examination admitted that the appellant was not convicted in any of the criminal cases registered against him

Complainant further admitted that while lodging the FIR, he mentioned that he got registered the two FIRs, however one was registered by him and the other was got registered by his son

During the course of cross-examination, the complainant admitted that the sister of the appellant was the wife of son of complainant who kicked her out along with children and she filed a petition under S.491, Cr.P.C., whereby she obtained the custody of her children from Sessions Judge

In such circumstances, the petition under S.491, Cr.P.C., filed against complainant's son could also be considered a factor for the false implication of the appellant in the instant case

Motive on occasions provides corroboration to the case of prosecution and often becomes a root cause for the false implication of an accused and for that reason is always considered as a double-edged weapon

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offenders, wrongful confinement, hurt by rash or negligent act, criminal intimidation, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Motive not proved

Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of the complainant by firing

According to the prosecution, the alleged motive behind the occurrence was that one of the co-accused had restrained the deceased from visiting their village

Surprisingly, however, the record reflected that on the very day of the incident, the deceased, accompanied by his cousin and his aunt (the complainant), visited the house of the accused and other co-accused, who were residing in the same vicinity

Said persons reportedly shared both lunch and dinner with the accused family before the incident allegedly took place later that night

Then alleged that complainant had come to their village, which was naturally illogical and inconsistent with normal human conduct

Furthermore, the prosecution narrative was self-contradictory, as alleged, the deceased had already been threatened not to visit the house or the village of the accused, it remained strange why he was allowed to visit, dine, and remained in their company for several hours before being killed

Prosecution had failed to explain what specific reason or provocation led to the killing

Thus, the alleged motive was vague, unsubstantiated and shrouded in mystery

Prosecution had nowhere established any prior enmity, dispute, or incident of altercation between the parties which could plausibly serve as a motive for such a heinous act

In the absence of a proven motive, the prosecution case became highly doubtful

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Motive of the occurrence as stated in the FIR by the complainant was that after alleged incident co-appellant informed the complainant and remaining two eye-witnesses that her husband deceased used to maltreat her, therefore, she with the help of her cousin/appellant committed murder of her husband/deceased by way of strangulation

However, the complainant and both the eye-witnesses could not prove the alleged motive

During evidence complainant deposed that they enquired from co-appellant, who told them that a quarrel took place between her and her husband, so she called her paternal aunt's son/appellant and killed her husband

Remaining two eye-witnesses of alleged incident, however, did not depose any such fact in their evidence before the Trial Court

Furthermore, the Investigating Officer did not bring on record any material to substantiate the motive alleged by the complainant that the deceased habitually maltreated his wife/co-appellant

Even in his deposition, the Investigating Officer did not assert that subsequent to her arrest, co-appellant had disclosed such motive or fact to him

Consequently, the prosecution witnesses failed to adduce any credible evidence enabling the Court to ascertain the veracity of the alleged motive, or to establish that such motive was of a compelling nature that could have driven co-appellant, in collusion with her cousin, appellant to commit qatl-i-amd of her husband/deceased

Although the residential quarter of deceased was situated on the upper portion of mosque, an area admittedly surrounded by shops, hotels, and a meat market, yet neither any member of the mosque committee, nor any shopkeeper or hotel owner was produced or examined by the prosecution to corroborate the allegation that deceased subjected his wife, co-appellant, to maltreatment

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstance.

Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Motive not proved

Accused were charged for committing murder of the daughter of complainant

Prosecution advanced the motive that the deceased had informed her parents via phone that the appellants mistreated her and that she feared they would kill her

To corroborate that, the complainant stated that his sister-in-law had submitted an application alleging deceased's maltreatment at the hands of the appellants

However, complainant failed to produce that application and also did not produce copy during investigation to the police

Additionally, a witness, during her testimony, did not corroborate the claim that she had filed such application

Neither the complainant produced independent evidence in that regard, nor did the Investigating Officer made any effort to collect oral or documentary evidence supporting the alleged motive

While the absence of motive alone was not the sole determining factor in assessing the veracity of the prosecution's case, it became crucial when the entire case was built upon the existence of such a motive

In the present case, since the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive, it must bear the consequences of that failure

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Investigating Officer deposed in cross that no witness had stated during investigation that co-accused and appellant and deceased were seen together in house and no witness had disclosed that at the time of occurrence both accused were present inside the house

Investigating Officer exhibited one application of deceased, and on such application the deceased narrated the story from the year of 2020 before SHO of concerned Police Station on account of disputed amount with his wife/appellant, as she left his house with co-accused and had great apprehension for his life from both accused

For such aspect the Investigating Officer in order to prove motive should have recorded the statement of concerned SHO, but he did not do so and even did not collect the fate of such application

Matter pertained to the year of 2020, much prior to the incident

A witness deposed before Trial Court that deceased did not make any complaint regarding co-accused during his life time and further deposed that no people of neighborhood had any grievance or complaint against the character of co-accused, and said witness deposed in cross that deceased had never made any complaint about his wife regarding her character

In instant case, the motive was not proved as the prosecution had totally failed to establish the motive

Appeal against conviction filed by accused/appellant was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, dacoity with murder, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, harabbah

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Motive not proved

Accused were charged for attempting to take away the cattle upon which brother of complainant made resistance; thereafter he was murdered by the accused persons through firing

Motive set-forth by complainant and eye-witness was that the twenty culprits armed with lethal weapons, tried to snatch the animals comprised of goats and cows of the complainant party but there was no evidence on record about snatching of the animals rather said witnesses stated that they went away towards the river side, meaning thereby that the culprits did not tether the cattle along with them

Investigation Officer was also silent in that regard and did not utter a word about the motive part that was the attempt to snatch the cattle

Therefore, the motive part could be culminated as not proved

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Admittedly, the deceased and petitioner were living together in their house as husband and wife till the date of occurrence

No litigation, civil or criminal, was pending between them till the date of the unfortunate incident of the instant case

Record showed that the petitioner himself took his wife/deceased from his house to the hospital

Deceased was alive when she was brought to the hospital by the petitioner and she died after four days from the date of her admission in the hospital

If the petitioner had any intention to commit the murder of his wife/deceased then he should have made sure the death of his wife at the spot instead of taking her to the hospital in injured condition

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, dishonestly misappropriating property possessed by a deceased person at the time of his death, common intention

Re-appraisal of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Motive not proved

Accused were charged for committing murder of the paternal uncle of the complainant

Insofar as the motive of inter-se illicit relationship between both the appellants was concerned, no prosecution witness had stated that they had ever seen the appellants in any objectionable condition or even talking to each other

Moreover, female appellant was living with deceased as his wife till the time of his death

Admittedly there was no litigation or a family suit between female appellant and her husband/deceased

Therefore, the motive as alleged by the prosecution had not been proved in this case

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

No motive whatsoever was alleged in the contents of the FIR or in the statements of the eye-witnesses recorded before the Trial Court and it was only mentioned therein that earlier appellant extended threats of life to the complainant party and also earlier committed an occurrence in the shop of the complainant party

Not explained by the prosecution that as to why the appellant earlier extended threats of life to the complainant party

No specific date, time or place of earlier threats allegedly given by the appellant to the complainant party was mentioned therein

Likewise, no date or time of the earlier incident, which was allegedly committed by the appellant in the shop of the complainant party was stated in the contents of the FIR or in the statements of witnesses

No FIR or Rapt or any application lodged by the complainant party against the appellant regarding the alleged earlier occurrence was produced in the prosecution evidence

Thus, a vague and ambiguous motive was alleged by the prosecution which could not be proved against the appellant or his co-accused

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force used against someone, except when there is grave and sudden provocation, assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty

Re-appraisal of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Motive not proved

Petitioner/accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by inflicting danda blows and then he subjected complainant and her daughter to physical assault and tore their clothes, in an attempt to outrage their modesty

Motive alleged by the prosecution was a dispute between the parties over a house

In that regard, no independent evidence was led to substantiate the existence or immediacy of such a dispute, nor was any document, litigation record, or corroborative testimony produced to establish that the petitioner bore such animosity as would propel him to commit a crime of that magnitude

Mere assertion of a vague motive, unsupported by credible material, could not be treated as conclusive proof

In that backdrop, the motive sought to be ascribed to the petitioner appeared to be speculative at best and failed to advance the prosecution's case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Motive alleged by the prosecution was that the appellant was addicted to narcotics and had demanded money from the deceased for the purchase of drugs and that when the deceased refused to pay, the appellant murdered her out of anger

Complainant, however, admitted during his cross-examination that the appellant was never booked in any case of narcotics

Likewise, eyewitness stated during his cross-examination that he did not know the amount that was demanded by the appellant from his mother, the deceased

No evidence was produced to show that the appellant ever remained under medical treatment for drug addiction

No cogent evidence was produced to prove the alleged motive

Thus, the motive alleged by the prosecution had not been proved in that case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged that they entered into the home of complainant, tied his and his wife's hands and one of them murdered his son

Record showed that the prosecution's case revealed two conflicting narratives regarding the motive

One asserted that the murder occurred during a robbery/dacoity, while the other proposed the possibility of targeted killing

Consequently, the true motive remained shrouded in mystery

Both versions had surfaced in the evidence, yet neither diminished the culpability of the appellants, nor any of the versions was supported by cogent evidence

Where the motive for the offence is shrouded in mystery then the extreme penalty of death is not warranted

Additionally, given that four individuals were implicated in the crime, the investigation and identification parade did not attribute a specific role to each appellant with respect to inflicting that injury

Said factual matrix, while not exonerating the appellants, constituted a relevant mitigating circumstance in the assessment of their respective culpabilities and the quantum of sentence

Thus, death sentence of the appellants was modified to the sentence of life imprisonment

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Record showed that the accusation leveled against accused "AA" was that he inflicted hatchet blows on the head of the deceased

As per prosecution case the accused persons came to the farm house of the deceased for dacoity on the instigation of one "GN", but the same proved to be incorrect

No looted money, article or hens were recovered from the possession of accused "AA" or his co-accused

No witness had stated that he had seen the petitioners while attempting to loot any article from the poultry shed of the deceased

While awarding death sentence and convicting an accused motive had to be given prime importance since without there being an un-shattered motive proved by the prosecution, death sentence could not be awarded, rather in such cases, death sentences were usually converted into sentences for life imprisonment

In the instant matter, the aspect of proving motive to the hilt was missing

Therefore, awarding death sentence or confirming the same would not only be harsh but also uncalled for, when admittedly no material had come on the record to prove the alleged motive

Moreover, it was not determinable in this case that as to what had actually happened immediately prior to the occurrence which resulted into present unfortunate incident

Likewise, if the motive of robbery punishable under Section 393, P.P.C., was not proved then offence of trespass punishable under Section 449, P.P.C., in order to loot any article from the poultry shed of the deceased was also not proved

Thus, the conviction and sentence of accused "AA" under Sections 393 & 449, P.P.C., were set-aside and he was acquitted of the said charges

However, the sentence awarded to the accused "AA" under Section 302(b), P.P.C., was modified from death sentence to life imprisonment

With said modification in sentence, petition was converted into an appeal and was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused and three co-accused persons were convicted by Trial Court for committing Qatl-i-amd of wife of accused and were sentenced to imprisonment for life

High Court acquitted three co-accused persons while sentence of accused was enhanced to death

Validity

Factum of motive was not proved by prosecution by bringing on record reliable and confidence inspiring evidence

All mitigating factors justified not handing down the sentence of death

Trial Court mentioned mitigating factors which had led to awarding sentence of life imprisonment

High Court had erroneously assumed that Trial Court did not record reasons

High Court enhanced sentence because, in its opinion, a harsher sentence should have been awarded

Supreme Court maintained conviction of accused as the prosecution had proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt but sentence of death was reduced to imprisonment for life as awarded by Trial Court

Appeal was partly allowed.

Accused persons were convicted by Trial Court for qatl-i-amd; one was sentenced to death whereas the other was sentenced to imprisonment for life

High Court maintained the conviction but converted death sentence into imprisonment for life

Validity

Complainant and other prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded at trial, made dishonest improvements for assigning specific roles to each accused

Such improvements created serious doubt about veracity of their testimony and it was not safe to place reliance on such statements

Eleven crime empties allegedly recovered from crime scene and one 30 bore pistol allegedly recovered on the pointing of one accused were sent together to Forensic Science Laboratory, wherefrom report was negative

No private witness of locality was associated to attest alleged recovery of crime weapon on the pointing of accused

Due to non-association of any private witness of locality to attest recovery of alleged weapon of offence, and due to lack of independent corroboration, the recovery was disbelieved

Prosecution did not produce an injured passerby and an eye-witness of the occurrence

Adverse inference was drawn under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 to the effect that had such witnesses been produced by prosecution at the trial, they would not have supported version of prosecution

Alleged motive lacked force necessary to connect accused persons with the commission of offence

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentences awarded to both the accused persons as prosecution failed to prove charge against them beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal was allowed.

Said recoveries were not put to the petitioners (accused persons) in their statements recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C., therefore, the said pieces of prosecution evidence could not be considered against the petitioners and the same has rightly been discarded by the High Court

Even otherwise the direct evidence of alleged eye-witnesses in this case had been discarded, therefore, the convictions and sentences of the petitioners under the capital charge could not sustain merely on the basis of alleged recoveries

Prosecution was not able to prove its case against the petitioners (accused persons) beyond the shadow of doubt, therefore, petitions were converted into appeals and allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside and the petitioners were acquitted of all the charges while extending them the benefit of doubt.

Absence of motive, failure to prove motive, or a motive that remains unclear or not alleged does not constitute a mitigating circumstance (justifying reduction of sentence)

Death penalty cannot be withheld solely because the prosecution fails to allege or establish a motive

Underlying reason behind this is that true motive for an offence is typically known only to the accused, rather than to the complainant, informant, or any other witnesses, unless it is explicitly or implicitly conveyed

Witnesses may describe the actions of accused during the commission of the offence

Others may try to infer or label the motive based on their observations or the information available to them, but the actual motive remains solely with the accused.

Presence of complainant with three deceased out of whom one was his brother and remaining two were his wife and daughter respectively, was quite natural and appealable

In villages such close relatives do associate and accompany each other to market/bazaar for purchase of household articles

Substitution of real culprits, especially in cases where eye-witnesses lost their kith and kins before their own eyes was a rare phenomenon

Once motive is set up by prosecution, but thereafter fails to prove the same, then prosecution must suffer the consequences and not the defense

Supreme Court declined to interfere in conviction of accused recorded by two Courts below under section 302(b), P.P.C. but converted death sentence into imprisonment for life on three counts as prosecution failed to prove motive and there were minor discrepancies in evidence coupled with long incarceration of accused, since his arrest including his period in death cell

Appeal was dismissed.