Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(1) The convict-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant for the sake or convenience) challenges through the present appeal, judgment and order dated May 6, 1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby he was found guilty under section 302 of the indian Panel Code and sentenced to undergo dangerous imprisonment for life with a fine or Rs. 500. In case of his failure to clear the fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(19) It has then been urged for and on behalf of the appellant that there was no motive on the part of the appellant to have killed his own brother. According to the learned counesl, a crime is always committed by an. accused with a view to achieving and attaining a particular object. An accused has always an A axe to grind. The learned counsel thus contends that the appellant in the instant case did not stand to gain anything thereby or to lose anything on the said core. Thus there is, no reason, whatsoever, as to why he should have committed the murder of his own real brother. The learned counsel in support of his aforesaid contention has sought support from the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court as reported in Rajinder Kumar and another v. State of Punjab . (6) "The motive behind a crime (in this case one punishable under S. 302, Indian Panel Code) is a relevant tact ot which evidence can be given. The absence of a motive is also a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence. .. . . . ".

(26) In the above-stated circumstances we feel that we can safely place reliance on the statement of Smt. Devki particularly when she happens to be the mother of the appellant. There is no reason as to why a mother should falsely implicate her own son in a case under Section 302, Indian Panel Code and particularly when her statement finds support from the statements of PW5 Kirpal Singh and Public Witness 12 Smt. Shakuntla. In this connection it is also noteworthy over here that when the deceased Was taken to the hospital; on being questioned in the doctor, Public Witness 5 Kirpal Singh informed him that he was stabbed by one Mahinder with a knife on thei left side of the chest. The fact that the injuries were caused only on the chest and on no other part of the body also finds support from Ex. Public Witness 21A i.e. the statement made by Kirpal Singh before the police.