Allahabad High Court
Narendra Alias Nagendra And Ors. (In ... vs State Of U.P. on 9 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003CRILJ2068
Author: D.R. Chaudhary
Bench: D.R. Chaudhary
JUDGMENT D.R. Chaudhary, J.
1. The appellants assail validity of the judgment and order dated 19-12-1980 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 398 of 1979 convicting Appellant No. 1 under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment, his brother Appellant No. 2 under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and their Father Appellant No. 3 under Sections 302/34 and 364, I.P.C. sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and four years R.I. under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. under Sections 364. The sentences however directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution came with this case:--Ram Sharan was Grandfather of Jai Bhagwan, whose two brothers were Hari Ram and Godha; Ramsharan had only one son Lakhmi Chand who had four sons, namely, Jagdish Sharma (P.W. 2), Satish (P.W. 3) Rishipal and Jai Bhagwan; Hariram had one son, namely, Jaichand (Appellant No. 3) who has six sons out of whom are Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 Narendra alias Nagendra and Virendra alias Lilu Respondents Godha-- the third brother of Ramsharan had no issue and he used to live with Lakhmi. In 1974 Godha had executed a registered sale deed of his landed properties for a sum of Rs. 7000/- in favour of four sons of Lakhmi Chand. The names of all four brothers were mutated in the revenue records. Godha died about five years ago and since then Jaichand and his sons had been feeling enmity on account of his transferring his land to four sons of Lakhmi Chand. On 19-6-1979 there was a quarrel between Jai Bhagwan and Narendra on tethering the cattle and keeping bullock cart. Jai Bhagwan slapped on the face of Nagendra. On 20th June, 1979 at about 3 p.m. Jai Bhagwan was returning from his khor after serving chati to his cattle. The khor is at a distance of 15 or 20 paces from the house of Jai Bhagwan. His brother Satish (P.W. 3) and Satish's wife Smt. Saroj (P.W. 4) were going towards khor and his other brothers Jagdish Sharma (P.W. 2) and Rishipal were near the khor under a neem tree. When Jai Bhagwan had gone about five paces from the khor Jaichand (Appellant No. 3) caught hold him by his arm and took him to his kothri which is towards east of the house of Jai Bhagwan whose brothers thought that Jaichand, their uncle, might have taken him to tell him something about yesterday's incident. They followed him to see as to what was the matter. When they were in front of the door of the kothri of Jaichand they saw that Jaichand (Appellant No. 3) and Virendra alias Lilu (Appellant No. 2) held Jai Bhagwan by his arms while Narendra alias Nagendra (Appellant No. 1) gave knife blow on the neck of Jai Bhagwan. On receipt of the knife blow Jai Bhagwan fell down. Narendra alias Nagendra branded the blood stained knife towards them and thereafter all three went towards north by scaling over the wall. After their escape they went inside the kothri. Till that time Jai Bhagwan was alive. When they were bringing him to their house and had just entered the main door of their house, Jai Bhagwan succumbed to his injuries. His dead body was kept near the main door of their house. Thereafter Jagdish Sharma (P.W. 2) scribed the F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-11) of this incident and went to Police Station Babugarh and lodged with the same at 4.00 p.m. The report of the case was registered in presence of S.I. Sita Ram Tayagi (P.W. 1).
3. A case under Section 302, I.P.C. was registered against the appellants. The investigation of the case was taken up by P.W. 7. He recorded statement of Sri Lila Dhar Sharma H.M. (P.W. 8). At the police station he also interrogated the witnesses Jagdish Sharma (P.W. 2) and Rishipal and reduced their statement in writing. Thereafter he proceeded to the place of occurrence, inspected the same and prepared the Site Plan (Ext. Ka-5). He had seen blood in the kothri of Jaichand and took samples of bloodstained and plain earth from there and sealed it separately in two tins. He had found the deadbody of Jai Bhagwan lying near the main door of the deceased's house. There also he had found bloodstained and plain earth. He had prepared memo (Ext. Ka-4). He held inquest on the dead body of Jai Bhagwan in presence of Panch witnesses and prepared Inquest Report (Ext. Ka-6). He sealed the dead body and handed it over to Constable Dharmvir Singh and Constable Daya Chandra (P.W. 6). He prepared challan lash and naksha lash, letters to C.M.O. and R.I. Exts. 7 to 10) respectively. Thereafter at 9.00 p.m. the investigation of the case was taken up by Sri Ramvir Singh S.O. (P.W. 9). P.W. 9 reached the place of occurrence at 9.00 p.m. on 20-6-1979 and recorded the statements of witnesses Satish Sharma (P.W. 3) and Smt. Saroj Devi (P.W. 4) on 21-6-1979 as they were not in a position to make statement on 20-6-1979. The dead body of Jai Bhagwan was transported to Meerut by P.W. 6 Constable Daya Chandra and Constable Dharmvir. They reached Police Lines, Meerut on 21-6-1979 at 8.15 p.m. and post-mortem on the dead body was performed the same day at 1:00 p.m. by P.W. 1 Dr. V. P. Singh, P. O. Piarey Lal Sharma Hospital, Meerut. On external examination he found that the deceased was aged 19 years, who had died about a day earlier, the body was average built; Rigor Mortis was present over the body; the body had turned pale but there were no signs of decomposition. He found following ante-mortem injury.
"1. Stab wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. Chest cavity on right side neck at the root of neck 3 cm. above right clavicle."
4. On internal examination he found an incised wound 1 cm. x 0.5 cm. on the upper lobe of right lung; Brain, pleura, left lung had turned pale; heart was empty, Right carotid artery was lacerated; stomach contained 150 gms. partially digested food; Small intestines contained gasses while large intestines contained faecal matter. He opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the stab wound and the injury, sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He prepared Post-Mortem Report (Ext. Ka-1). On completion of the investigation P.W. 9 submitted charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-13) on 12-7-1979 against the appellants who were put on trial.
5. The appellant Narendra alias Nagendra was charged under Sections 364 and 302, I.P.C. while remaining two accused, namely, Jaichand son of Hariram and Virendra son of Jaichand were charged under Sections 364 and 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. on the allegations of abduction and murder on 20-6-1979 at about 3 p.m. by assaulting him with knife.
6. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them. In their statements under Section 313, Cr. P. C. they had admitted the relationship deposed to by P.W. 2 Jagdish Sharma and also that Godha used to live with Lakhmi Chand, father of the deceased and that he had executed sale deed (Ext. Ka-2) of his property in favour of the four sons of Lakhmi Chand. Appellant No. 2 Virendra alias Lilu and Appellant No. 1 Narendra alias Nagendra denied all other allegations of the presence and of their participation in the crime. They pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. Appellant Jaichand also pleaded that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity; that Jai Bhagwan was ugly and lame; that Satish got him married with his younger sister-in-law in the expectation that he would get the landed property of his father-in-law; the four brothers had got separated and they wanted the loan money to be repaid by Jai Bhagwan that he has shown favour to Jai Bhagwan; that Satish had illicit liaison with Jai Bhagwan's wife, which was resented to by the appellant and that he had several times spoken of this connection; and that it was on account of this enmity he has been falsely implicated.
7. The prosecution in support of its case examined nine witnesses. P.W. 1 Dr. V. P. Singh is the Medical Officer, who had performed Post-Mortem Examination on the dead body of Jai Bhagwan. P.W. 2 Jagdish Sharma is the First Informant as well as an eye-witness. He is also a witness of the motive alleged by the prosecution. P.W. 3 Satish Chand and P.W. 4 Smt. Saroj Devi are also witnesses of fact. P.W. 5 Fateh Singh is a witness of seizure of the bloodstained and plain earth from the place of occurrence. P.W. 6 Constable Dayachand had taken the dead body to Meerut from the place of occurrence for Post-Mortem Examination. P.W. 7 S.I. Siyaram Tyagi is the I.O., who had initiated the investigation of the case. P.W. 8 Sri Liladhar Sharma is the scribe of the chik report (Ext. Ka-11) and the relevant G.D. entry copy of which is (Ext. Ka-12) and P.W. 9, S.I. Ramvir Singh completed the investigation and submitted charge-sheet.
8. In their defence the appellants examined one witness, namely, Sri Barhm Pal Singh, Advocate D.W. 1 who has deposed that on 22-8-1979 Satish son of Laxmi Chand resident of village Atuta had moved an application dated 22-8-1979 which bears his signatures (Ext. Kha-1); that Sri Satish had signed on the said application in his presence and he had identified the signatures of Satish Chand on the said application; that he knew Satish from before the incident and along with the said application Satish had also moved an affidavit to support the contents of the application. He has proved the signatures of Satish (Ext. Kha-1) and his signatures (Ext. Kha-2) on the said application.
9. The learned Sessions Judge after having examined the oral and documentary evidence on record held the appellants guilty of the charges and convicted and sentenced them mentioned as above.
10. Sri D. N. Wali, learned counsel for the appellants, challenged the FIR and argued that the FIR was not written at the place of occurrence but it was Written at the Police Station with the assistance of the police. He referred to the last time of the FIR as well as the statement of Jagdish Sharma, which are produced below:
"JAI BHAGWAN KI LASH WAHAN PER PARI HAI SUCHANA KO AAYA HOO."
"MAI ISKEY PAAS RONE CHILLANE NAHI BAITHA. MAINE WAHI REPORT LIKHI THI. KAGAJ KALAM GHAR SE HI LIYA THA. SAYAHI WALE KALAM (PEN) SE REPORT LIKHI THI BAL PEN NAHI THI. MERA KALAM FOUNTAIN PEN THA. REPORT LIKHNE SE PAHALE MERI MERE BHAIYOO SE BHABHI SE BAAT HUI THI. REPORT MAI JEB ME RAKHKAR LE GAYA THA PANT KI JEB ME LE GAYA THA. HAM CYCLE SE THANE GAYE THE. EXK K-3 ME THO MORE LAMBAI ME HAI. EK HASHIYE KA HAI AUR DUSARA BICH ME HAI. MAINE REPORT ME LIKHA HAI KI JAI BHAGWAN KE LASH WAHI PARI HAI. ESME YAH BHI LIKHA HAI KE SUCHNA KO AAYA HOO. YAH KAHNA GALAT HAI KE MAINE REPORT THANE PAR POLICE KE MASHBARE SE LIKHI THI."
11. Referring to the last line of the FIR and the statement of Jagdish Sharma P.W. 2 aforequoted Sri Wali contended firstly that from the last sentence of the FIR it is absolutely clear that, the first informant, Jagdish Sharma P.W. 2 reached the police station and wrote the FIR at the police station with the assistance of the police and secondly that the above statement in cross-examination of P.W. 2 Jagdish Sharma in paragraph 17 of his statement is highly improbable as his own brother was murdered and he would not wale and cry and calmly sit down after taking a paper from his house to write down the FIR after having talk with his brothers and sister-in-law.
12. He also argued that it has come in the statement of Jagdish Sharma that after having written the FIR the paper was folded twice, the first fold was in the margin and the other in the middle of the paper who thereafter kept the paper in the pocket of his pant and cycled to the Police Station covering about three miles from the place of occurrence therefore, there must have come folds and creases in the paper as no other fold and creases other than the two folds was found on the paper it can be inferred that the FIR was not written at the place of occurrence but at the Police Station.
13. He relied upon Shree Ram alias Siriya v. State, (1994) 31 All Cri C 678. He also placed specific reliance on paragraph No. 17 of the judgment.
14. The learned Government Advocate on the other hand argued that there is no merit in the appeal. The submissions made by Sri Wali is devoid of any substance and the appeal be dismissed.
15. Sri Wali also submitted his arguments in writing which is on the record.
16. Perused the record and the decisions cited at the Bar.
17. The passage relied upon by Sri Wali in Shree Ram (Supra) reads as under:--
" The prosecution case is that the informant Surjeet Singh (P.W. 1) got the first information report Ext. Ka-1 written by Suraj Singh, his brother in law on his dictation in his village. But the words "Lasho ko ghar chhorkar report ko aaya hun," occurring in the first information report indicate that it was written not in the village, but at the police station itself. Pooran (P.W. 3) has stated that Suraj Singh happened to come to take his sister to his house. Seeing the dead bodies, he (Suraj Singh) burst into tears. All those who were present on the place of occurrence, asked him (Suraj Singh) to go to the police station to lodge a report. Consequently he went to the police station for that purpose. Surjeet Singh (P.W. 1) had been weeping bitterly on the spot where others were present. He did not go any where. Surjeet Singh (P.W. 1) has further stated that he had been at the police station for about 6 hours, within which time the entire writing work was done. His brother-in-law and 5-6 persons of his village had gone to the police station on cycles. He (Surjeet Singh P.W. 1) had returned from the police station leaving those persons there. In view of all this the first information report can be held to have been written at the police station and not in the village and that too with due deliberations and consultations."
18. The last line of the F.I.R. states that 'Jai Bhagwan ki lash waha par pari hai suchana ko aaya hoo.' while in Shree Ram's case (supra) the prosecution case was that the informant Sujeet Singh got the FIR written by Suraj Singh, his brother-in-law on his dictation in village. The FIR mentioned words in the F.I.R. "Lashon ko ghar chhorkar report ko aaya hun". Pooran (P.W. 2) deposed that all those present on the place of occurrence asked Suraj Singh to go to the police station to lodge the FIR consequently he went to police station for that purpose. Sujeet Singh (P.W. 1) has stated that he had been at the police station for 6 hours within what time entire writing work was done. In the fact situation of that case this Court come to the conclusion that the FIR was not written at the village but was written at the police station.
19. We are of the view that the facts in case of Shree Ram (1994 All Cri C 678) (supra) were different than the facts in the present case. The learned Sessions Judge after having considered the evidence on the record has recorded his conclusion that "It is likely that witness might have written these words in the expectation that soon after scribing the report he will go to police station with the report." The conclusion aforesaid has been made after appreciation of the evidence on record.
20. To test the argument of Sri Wali in regard to folds after carefully looking at the paper containing the F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-11) was handed over to the learned A.G.A. asked to fold the same in margin and in the middle and to keep the same in pocket and to undergo exercise to stand and sit down on the seat on several times. After completing the aforesaid exercise the paper Ext. Ka-11 was taken out from the pocket and was handed over to Sri Wali who found no creases or folds other than the two folds. From the aforesaid exercise nothing came out to the help of Sri Wali to impeach the prosecution story that the F.I.R. was written at the place of occurrence.
21. By means of written argument Sri Wali has contended that the exercise of standing and sitting down was not gone ten times rather hardly about four times.
22. There would be no occasion to the informant to fold the paper, if the FIR would have been written at the police station. It was rather natural that if the paper required to be folded to make it easy to keep the same in the pocket which according to the prosecution was done in the present case.
23. Referring to the statements of the eye-witnesses Jagdish Sharma P.W. 2, -Satish P.W. 3 and Smt. Saroj Devi P.W. 4, Sri Wali contended that it is very clear that these witnesses after the death of Jai Bhagwan started wailing and crying along with others and that being the position naturally persons living near the place of occurrence would have come at the house and after finding Jai Bhagwan murdered they would naturally make enquiry and the names of appellants would be told to them who would have become the most natural witnesses to prove the relevant fact i.e. the name of the accused were told to them immediately after the occurrence and this fact may be admissible in evidence under Sections 5 and 6 of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore, it can be safely argued that these witnesses cannot be said to be reliable in the absence of any independent corroboration. The contention raised by Sri Wali is that in a murder case, the Court should insist upon plurality of witnesses. He also placed reliance on Mahendrapal v. State, AIR 1955 All 328 (32).
24. A similar question came up for consideration before the Apex Court in case of Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614. The Apex Court discussed the contention in detail referring to Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The Court was of the view that the Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognized in Section 134, which by laying down that "no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact" has enshrined the well recognized maximum that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted". It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the Presiding Judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the guilt on the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the Court to be entirely reliable; there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. The Apex Court further observed in paragraph 12 of the judgment that generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories; (1) Wholly reliable; (2) Wholly unreliable; (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way, it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if Courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses if proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The Court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in case of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver, both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the Court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable.
25. Here the prosecution has examined PW 2 Jagdish Sharma, PW 3 Satish Chand and PW 4 Smt. Saroj Devi as the witnesses of fact. The learned trial Judge found them above suspicion and their testimony to be reliable and convicted the appellants. We have examined the deposition of the witnesses of fact in the light of the evidence of doctor who had conducted the post mortem. They all have fully supported the prosecution case. No material irregularity or contradiction has been pointed out by Sri Wali which may persuade us to hold that the learned trial Judge had erred in finding the witnesses of fact to be reliable and the equality of the evidence sufficient to rest the conviction of the appellants as has been observed by the Apex Court that corroboration is not insisted upon by the statute. The Court should not insist upon corroboration except in the circumstances referred to herein above.
26. The arguments of Sri Wali in this respect, in our view, is not supported by the decision in Vadivelu Thevar's case (AIR 1957 SC 614) (supra).
27. Sri Wali also questioned the correctness of the prosecution case with reference to the statement of PW 2 Jagdish Sharma who admits in the cross-examination that "JAI CHAND APNI KOTHRI SE AA RAHA THA. JAB JAI BHAGWAN KA HAATH JAI CHAND NE PAKRA TAB DONO ME AAPS ME KOI BAT NAHI HOOI. JAI CHAND BAJU PAKARKAR KHICHTA HUWA LE GAYA. OOS SAMAY MERE BHAI NE KOI SHORE NAHI MACHAYA. HAMNE JAI BHAGWAN KO KHICHE JAATE DHEKKAR NAHI KAHA KI KYO KHICH RAHO HAI" These statements raise reasonable doubt that Jai Bhagwan being taken by Jai Chand by force by dragging it does not stand to reason and even then he (Jai Bhagwan) would not cry and his brothers would remain mere spectators of the whole show.
28. In the F.I.R. which was lodged by PW 2 he has stated "JAI BHAGWAN MAVESHIYO KO BHUSA DALKAR GHAR AA RAHA THA AUR MERE BHAI YA BHABHI SAROJ MAVESHIYO KO SANNI KARNE JA RAHE THE, MAI AUR RISHIPAL MAVESHIYO KO NEEM KE NICHE SE KHOL RAHE THE KI JAI CHAND POOTRA HARIRAM AAYA AUR RASTE ME SE JAI BHAGWAN KO BAAJOO PAKARKAR APANI KOTHRI ME LE GAYA JAHAI ESKE DONO LARKE NARENDRA ALIAS NAGENDRA VA VIRENDRA ALIAS LILU BHI THE MAI AUR MERE BHAI SATISH VA RISHIPAL VA BHABHI SAROJ KE THAM HAMANE THEKHA KI KOTHRI KE KEWAR KHOOOLE HAI AUR JAI CHAND VA VIRENDRA ALIAS LILU NE JAI BHAGWAN KE EK-EK HATH PAKAR RAKHE THE AUR NARENDRA ALIAS NAGENDRA NE JAI BHAGWAN KE GARDAN ME CHAKOO BHONK DIYA."
29. In paragraph 5 of his examination-in-chief PW 2, has stated that "DINAK 20-6-1979 KO TEEN BAJE DIN JAI BHAGWAN PASHUWON LP KHOR PAR BHUSA DALKAR GHAR AA RAHA THA. KHOR MERE GHAR SE 15-10 KADAM PAR HAI. MERE BHABHI SAROJ VA BHAI SATISH MAVESHIYON KO SANI KARNE KHOR PAR JA RAHE THE. MAI AUR RISHIPAL NEEM KE NICHE SE MAVESHEYON KO KHOL RAHE THE. HAMNE THEKA KI JAICHAND POOTRA HARIRAM MULJIM JAI BHAGWAN KE PAAS KHOR SE KARIB 5 KADAM PAR AAYA. AUR JAB BHAGWAN KI BAAJOO PAKARKAR APANI KOTHRI ME LE GAYA. HAMNE SAMJHA KI CHACHA HAIN KAL KI LARRI KE BARE ME KIOOCH SAMJHAUTA HOGA. MAI AUR MERE BHABHI SAROJ VA RISHIPAL BHI WAHA PAHOOCHE. KOTHARI ME BAAHAR SE HAMNE DEKHA KI JAI BHAGWAN KA EK HAATH JAI CHAND NE AUR DUSRA VIRENDRA MULJIM NE PAKAR RAKHA THA. NAREDNRA ALIAS NAGENDRA NE JAI BHAGWAN KO GARDAN ME CHAKOO BHONK DIYA."
30. We have examined the statement of PW 2 Jagdish Sharma as contained in the FIR, his statements made in the examination-in-chief and the statements made by him in cross-examination along with the evidence of PW 3 Satish and PW 4 Smt. Saroj Devi, who have corroborated the statement of PW 2 Jagdish Sharma. There appears to be no material contradiction in the statement of PW 2. We find it to be consistent. PW 2 Jagdish Sharma has stated that Jaichand accused came and took the deceased Jai Bhagwan to the kothri by holding his arms he thought that his uncle Jaichand has taken the deceased to the kothri to compromise the dispute between the deceased and Narendra @ Nagendra which took place day before the incident. The statement of PW 2 Jagdish Sharma referred to by Sri Wali to bring the prosecution story within the ambit of suspicion appears to be unsustainable. If the statement of PW 2 Jagdish Sharma recorded in paragraph 5 of the examination-in-chief referred to above and the statement contained in" paragraph 12 of the cross-examination are read together with the statement of PW 2 Jagdish Sharma as contained in paragraph 12 of the cross-examination they appear to be natural and probable particularly because the parties are from a common ancestor. Preceding the day of incident there was a quarrel between Narendra @ Nagendra and deceased who slapped Narendra alias Nagendra the real brother of Jaichand. There was possibility that some idea might have developed in the mind of accused to compromise the matter between the parties and the deceased was taken to the kothri for the purpose.
31. The statement of PW 2 Jagdish Sharma cannot be said to be unnatural or improbable. It cannot be said that the statements make the prosecution case suspicious.
32. Sri Wali submitted that there was no motive to commit the crime as the motive that Godha had sold the property in the year 1974 as a result of which the appellants could have a grudge as till the date of incident i.e. 20th June, 1979 nothing had happened between the parties.
33. The incident of beating Narendra @ Nagendra by the deceased took place just the preceding day which could be immediate motive to commit the crime.
34. We find three eye witnesses of fact, examined by the prosecution, consistent in their evidence and the defence failed to impeach their testimony in cross-examination.
35. It is a settled law that where there is direct and reliable evidence on the question of fact the motive for commission of crime loses its importance.
36. As the prosecution case stands fully supported by the evidence on record in our view the arguments of Sri Wali that there is no sufficient motive to commit the heinous crime by the appellants is not acceptable.
37. Sri Wali laid fresh stress on the statement made by PW 2 Jagdish Sharma in his cross-examination (Paragraph 10 of his deposition) that widow of Jai Bhagwan was like his daughter. He argued that Roshni (the widow) would have been allowed to marry with Rishipal, who was unmarried at the time when this incident took place but Satish would marry Roshni or keep her as mistress only to grab the entire property of his father-in-law and he would not like even an inch to go out of the share of the property of his father-in-law to any of his brothers. PW 2 Jagdish Sharma after the murder of Jai Bhagwan married with Roshni, the wife of deceased, or took her to be his mistress and after that children were born to them.
38. To support his submission that PW 2 Jagdish Sharma himself has married with Roshni, the widow of the deceased Jai Bhagwan, Sri Wali filed an application under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code with a request to admit additional, evidence filed along with the application. To this application a counter was filed. This applications however, was subsequently not pressed by Sri Wali.
39. As stated above, the testimony of all the three eye witnesses examined by the prosecution is consistent on all material points and each of them has corroborated the case of the prosecution as narrated in the FIR.
40. This argument of Sri Wali according to us will have no bearing on the prosecution story, which has been found to be proved beyond doubt.
41. The judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing the appellants are confirmed. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
42. The Appellants' bail bonds are cancelled. They are required to be taken in custody and the sureties to be discharged.
43. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below for a follow up action.