Motive not established

Parties were known to each other, therefore, not mentioning the name of the co-accused in the crime report shifted the burden on the shoulder of the prosecution to assign justiciable reasons for non-identification of the co-accused at the time of occurrence, especially when it is an admitted fact that the accused and co-accused did not commit the crime with covered faces

Although the complainant challenged the acquittal of co-accused before the High Court by filing a petition against acquittal but later on withdrew the same, which means that the findings of the Trial Court regarding the acquittal attained finality and the prosecution case to the extent of murder of one of the deceased had been disbelieved

In these circumstances, more caution was needed to decide the case of the accused

During the course of proceedings before the Trial Court, an attested copy of attendance register was placed on record, which showed that on the day of occurrence the complainant was present in his office, which was at a distance of 100 kilometers from the place of occurrence

According to the witnesses, the accused fired at the deceased from a distance of 3/4 karams but the medical record shows that there was blackening and charring around the wounds, which suggested that the injuries were caused from a close range, which further negated the ocular account

There were only two eye-witnesses of the occurrence, who admittedly, had been disbelieved to the extent of the acquitted co-accused, who was alleged to have played a similar role in the occurrence, then the same evidence could not be relied upon to convict the accused on capital punishment unless there was an independent corroboration and some strong incriminating evidence to the extent of his involvement in commission of the offence but the same was lacking in the instant case

Recovery of weapon from the accused was inconsequential because admittedly no crime empty was collected from the place of occurrence

Motive had also rightly been disbelieved by the High Court by holding that it was a vaguely formulated motive and no evidence in support of the same has been placed on record

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was acquitted of the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt.

Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant and causing firearm injuries to another person

Admittedly the alleged place of occurrence was thickly populated area, but neither an independent person from the said bazar, nor any shopkeeper was associated to be a witness, especially shopkeeper of the shop where the alleged incident took place

Accused took plea that there was dispute of deceased with the "G" tribe and the same was admitted by complainant and witnesses

Said witnesses also admitted that some of the absconding accused belonged to "G" tribe and the accused belonged to "S" tribe, who had no concern with the "G" tribe

Defence plea was more acceptable then the prosecution case

Nothing was on record to disclose the motive behind the occurrence

Prosecution was not bound to set up motive in every case, but in the instant case, a motive behind the incident was against the "G" tribe, but not against the accused, who belonged to "S" tribe

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

However, the High Court had rightly discarded the same by holding that the love marriage had taken place about two years back and the grievance of the family of injured witness had been redressed as pursuant to a compromise the daughter of the deceased was given in the nikah of son of co-accused

Hence, the motive part of the prosecution case did not inspire confidence so as to term it is as a cause of the murder

Keeping in view the fact that motive was disbelieved, the High Court has rightly taken a lenient view and converted the sentence of death into imprisonment for life to meet the ends of justice, hence, it left no room to further deliberate on this point

Petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed and leave was refused.

Prosecution had also produced servant of the deceased, who in his statement deposed that the accused wanted him to work with him and asked him to leave the job of the deceased

Bare perusal of the statement of the servant revealed that the real motive of the accused was with the said servant, therefore, the actual motive to commit the murder of deceased remained shrouded in mystery

In these circumstances, the penalty of death awarded to the accused would be harsh

Consequently, while maintaining the conviction of the accused under section 302(b), P.P.C., his sentence of death was altered into imprisonment for life

Appeal was partly allowed.

If a specific motive has been alleged by the prosecution then it is duty of the prosecution to establish the said motive through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence

Otherwise, the said motive might be considered a mitigating circumstance in favour of an accused.

High Court had rightly disbelieved the motive by holding that there was no positive proof that the deceased was, instrumental in rejection of matrimonial proposal sent by the accused

So far as the recovery of weapon of offence was concerned, admittedly no empty was recovered from the place of occurrence, which could be sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis, therefore, the recovery was inconsequential

High Court had rightly taken a lenient view and converted the sentence of death into imprisonment for life

No further leniency could be shown to the accused

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Keeping in view the fact that no recovery was affected and motive had not been proved, the High Court had rightly taken a lenient view and converted the sentence of death into imprisonment for life

No further leniency could be shown to the accused

Petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed and leave was refused.

Absence of motive or absence of proof of the same would be a sufficient mitigating circumstance to determine the quantum of sentence.

Motive set up by the prosecution was that accused being real brother of deceased had sold out his agricultural land and wanted to grab his cotton factory

Complainant admitted during his cross-examination that the deceased was used to give financial support to the accused and that his children were living with the complainant

No dispute between the brothers could be established and no untoward incident had taken place prior to the occurrence

Motive of the occurrence could not be established, in circumstances.

Deceased was although found involved in the murder during investigation and was arrested, but he was bailed out with the consent of complainant party

Present occurrence took place after approximately 19 months of post-arrest bail of deceased and during that period no untoward incident took place between the parties

Said aspect was sufficient to expose the veracity of motive projected by prosecution

High Court acquitted the appellants of the charge, in circumstances and set aside their convictions and sentences.

Investigating officers concluded that co-accused persons committed the murder and rest of the accused persons were innocent

Appellant, from the day one, took the plea of alibi

Three defence witnesses had verified the appellant's presence with them at the time of occurrence

Complainant filed private complaint after 9 months of the occurrence with some variation

No specific weapon was alleged to have been carried by the appellant and his co-accused in the crime report but they were shown armed with .30 bore pistols in the private complaint

Allegation of beating was also omitted from the private complaint because the deceased had not sustained any blunt injury

Presence of eye-witnesses along with the deceased was doubtful as they were five in number and it would have been difficult for accused persons to halt the complainant party and if it was so then the accused persons would also have received injuries in retaliation

Medical evidence showed that the deceased had not died due to firearm injury but his death was caused due to injury caused with some hard object other than firearm weapon

Motive of the occurrence was not directly linked with the accused

No crime weapon was recovered from the accused during investigation

Prosecution had failed to prove the charge of murder against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt through cogent, reliable, unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidence

Appeal was allowed, conviction and sentence awarded to the accused was set aside, in circumstances.

Motive was set up after the arrest of the accused; if the motive was really in existence, then, in the FIR or at least at a subsequent stage before the discovery of the dead body and arrest of the accused, the complainant might have disclosed it, being a very important factor because on that basis, the investigator would have taken step to interrogate all the accused persons before their actual arrest

Motive was revealed for the first time by some other arrested suspects in the crime and then it was put into the mouth of the complainant

Motive belatedly set up appeared to be self-manufactured with the connivance of the police

Prosecution had failed to establish its case against the accused persons, who were acquitted of all charges by extending them the benefit of doubt.

Trial Court, acquitted co-accused by giving benefit of doubt, convicted present accused under S. 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with award of compensation to legal heirs of deceased on the basis of same evidence

No appeal was filed against the acquittal of co-accused

No direct evidence against the accused was available which could justify his conviction on a capital charge

Recovery was effected after sixteen days of the occurrence

Chemical Examiner report was prepared after twenty one days of the recovery

Confession of accused about the murder of deceased before co-accused, overheard by the complainant, which was extra-judicial confession, as such carried no weight

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused beyond any reasonable doubt

All such factors made the case of prosecution doubtful

High Court, setting aside conviction and sentence, acquitted accused

Appeal was accepted in circumstances.

Alleged motive for the occurrence was that deceased, who was a head teacher, had transferred the accused (teacher) to another school

Deceased had numerous stab wounds on his body, numbering nineteen in all

Accused was armed only with a scissors, and causing many wounds to the deceased with a scissors must have consumed reasonable amount of time

However, the three witnesses, who were all related to the deceased, remained silent spectators, and did not react or show any response when the accused was allegedly stabbing the deceased

Intervention by a close relative in such a situation was very natural but in the present case witnesses neither did anything nor attempted to chase the accused to apprehend him

Presence of witnesses at the crime spot had become highly doubtful due to their unnatural conduct, therefore no explicit reliance could be placed on their testimony

Presumption was that deceased was done to death when no one was present to rescue him

Motive for the occurrence was not established in any manner through any documentary evidence or even secondary evidence of reliable nature

Even otherwise deceased, who was a head teacher, had no authority to transfer the accused-teacher to another school

Such circumstances rendered the motive for the occurrence entirely feeble, artificial and not appealing to a prudent mind

Since the ocular account was worthy of being discarded, the recovery of scissors from accused, which otherwise was doubtful, and other pieces of evidence would not be sufficient to carry conviction on a capital charge

Appeal was allowed accordingly and accused was acquitted of the charge by extending him benefit of doubt.