Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Ramzan Mian, PW 9, husband of the deceased, Sakina Khatoon, father of Ambud Nisa, PW 7 and father-in-law of Saimul Nisa (PW 8) is the informant. He has said that his wife has been killed on Thursday at about 7 O'clook and at that time, he had gone to attend the call of nature. He heard alarm whereupon he rushed running. While he was coming, he saw Samtul Dhobi armed with garasi and Sukhal Dhobi with lathi running away. He made an attempt to apprehend them but Samtul pushed him and he fell down and both the accused ran away towards South. He came to his darwaztj where his daughter and daughter-in-law (PWs 7 and 8) said that both Samtul and Sukhal have chopped off his wife Sakina Khatooa's neck, whom he saw lying with injuries on her right side of the head and blood was oozing and the mat had got wet. She was restless (ill his arrival but died as soon as he reached there. His daughter Ambud was sleeping by the side of his wife and she said that after hitting her, accused Samtul gave his daughter garasi blow causing injury to her. Salira Dhobi, brother of Sukhal and Samtul had died on Wednesday, a day earlier than the occurrence on account of snake bite and the accused are said to be under the impression that it was on account of witch craft of Sakina Kbatoon that Saliro had died. He (witness) had a dispute with the appellants for a Sheesham tree. He wont to the police station with the Choukidar in the morning on Friday where his statement was recorded upon which he put his L.T.I. The police sent his daughter Ambil Nisa to Majhaulia Hospital for treatment as he had gone to the police station with his daughter. The police sent the dead body of Sakina Khatoon for post mortem examination to Bettiah on Friday. In cross-examination, he has said that Chokar is his brother whose house is near his house and Chirkut Dhobi's house was coatintiguous south of his house and ha has also family mambers but Chokar and Chirkut did not come after the occurrence One Chaadnka's child had died by anake bite but he had not made any allegation against his wife. But allegation against his wife, being a witch was made a year earlier to the occurrence by the Dhobies but his wife Sakina was never ghoraoed or tortured. On the night of the occurrence, the Barat had come to the place of Salim, the pattidar of Sattar (PW 6). The house of the accused are nearby. He had gone to the place of Salim to see the barat which had not come though it came one hour after the occurrence. Many people had come near the house of Saline He remembered the names of only Tulisi and ParmuUah Mian among the persons who had come there and did not remember names of other as he was weeping. He had gone to the field to the east of his house at a distance of about one Katha. He had heard alarm raised by his daughter-in-law asking the people to come as accused Samtal and Sukhal were fleeing away after chopping his wife and so, he ran after answering the call of nature in perplexed condition. The accused were found running away at the place beyond his Sehan when he say them, at a distance of about 8-10 steps east. They jumped into the field of one Sheo Kumar Sahi which is about 1-1/4 eabits from his Sehan. He (witness) did not jump into that field as Chokar bad sown brinjal in it. The field bad developed marks, as a result of fall an4 nose else except the witness had chased. The blood had fallen up to his Sahan for 5-b steps. But the marks toad disappeared on account, of the people who had come in the night. He had found three injuries on the person of his wife, i.e., on the portion above the ear and adjoining portion of her head and there was only one injury on the neck of his daughter which appeared to have been caused by garasa. His daughter was senseless when he reached there and she regained consciousness at about 2 a.m. in the night. He had gone to the police station before the sunrise and his statement was not taken and after the statement was taken, the police reached the spot at about 10 a.m. The choukldar, who had come after the occurrence and to whom, he said about the occurrence, was not examined. No panchayat was held in respect of the occurrence. It was not a fact that the Shissham tree belongs to the accused.

10. P.W. 11, Ambud Nisa, daughter of the informant and also the injured eye-witnesses has said that it was a Thursday night and light had been burning in the house and was so much light there that one could see each other. She was sleeping on a mat near her mother Sakina Khatoon. Her father had gone out for easing when both the accused Samtul and Sukhal reached the place where she and her mother were sleeping and she and her mother were awakened. Samtul was armed with garasi and Sukhal was with lathi. Samtul assaulted at the portion of temple region of her mother with garasi. She threw away the chadar from which she had wrapped herself and raised alarm that Sukhal and Samtul were assaulting her mother whereupon Samtul hit her (witness) with garasi on the left portion of her ear. Her mother died instantaneously on the spot as a result of assault. The motive for the murder was that Samtul's brother, Salira had died of snake bite and appellants were saying that on account of witch craft, she got him bitten by the snake. In cross-examination, she has said that her house is towards west in the big village with many affluent persons and she saw none else except her father and brother's wife reaching on hulla. She had become unconscious a few moments after assault and regained consciouness at 12 in the same night and found her brother's wife in the house and she had no talk with any body. Her east facing house had got a room and verandah towards east and there is a cattle shed (2, 3 cubit X 3 cubit) to the east of the Osara, The rest of the cattle shed is the duar (sehan). She and her mother were sleeping between the house and cattle shed. Towards west of her house, are many houses of the persons whose names she could not give. She admitted to at Chokar is her uncle. She has said that her mother had not wrapped herself with chadar but had spread only her sari and the neck was open. Her father had gone outside the house moments prior to the arrival of the accused and had gone to such a distance from where be was visible. He returned running and was alone. While he was coming the accused were returning. Her father met the accused at the place towards east of the cattle shed. None had come from the village at that time. She had become unconscious when her father reached and she said nothing to him. She was assaulted when she had thrown the chadar and then she saw her mother wrigging. She was assaulted twice with the iron portion and wooden portion of the garasi. The police had taken her statement and it is not correct that she had said to the police that she was assaulted by Samtul Dhobi with the wooden portion of the garasi.

20. Learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that the motive imputed to the appellants for the offence is not made out. PWs. 8, 9 and 11 have said that on account of snake bite Salim Mian was died and so, the appellants thought it to be on account of the witch craft on the victim. So, the motive is said to be the accused persons whatever people were saying in general against her, has been given out by the witnesses. The motive is of secondary importance when the evidence of the witnesses is direct and gives out a case against the accused. Motive is always for the accused and in case motive is not proved, it will not have any effect. Id the case of Faqira v. State of U. P. , it has been observed at page 916, (Para 4). The fact that the apparent motive was too flimsy is no reply to the unshaken testimony of creditable and natural eye-witnesses who had no motive whatsoever to implicate the appellant falsely. Further, in the case of Molu and Ors. v. State of Haryana , the Supreme Court has observed at page 2505 (Para 11). If, however, the evidence of the eye-witnesses is creditworthy and is believed by the Court which has placed implicit reliance on them, the question whether there is any motive or not becomes 'wholly irrelevant. Further, in the case of State of Haryana v. Sher Singh and Ors. , it has been observed : "'The prosecution is not bound to prove motive of any offence in a criminal case, inasmuch as motive is known only to the perpetrator of the crime and may not be known to others. If the motive is proved by prosecution, the Court has to consider it and see whether is adequate/' In the case of Mulakh Raj etc. v. Sattsh Kumar and Ors. ; it has been observed : "The failure to prove motive is not fatal as a matter of law. Proof of motive is never an indispensable for conviction. When facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved, Therfore, absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case. In the case of Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar and Anr. v. The State of Kerala , it has been observed at page 1238 (Para 3). In any case, it is not sine quo non for the success of the prosecution that the motive must be proved. So long as the other evidence remains convincing and is not open to reasonale doubt, a conviction may well be based on it." It has also been said in the case of State of U. P. v. Hari Prmad and Ors. : "This is not to say that even if the witnesses are truthful, the prosecution must fail for the reason that the motive of the crime is difficult to find. For the matter of that, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime. Often times, a motive is indicated to heightened the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by that motive. But, if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in with the alleged motive. If the motive here, was directed against Kanahaiya Bux Singh and his sister Chandrawati and his brother Kisan Pal, would have been allowed escape unsoathed when they were within the easy reach of the accused and how strange action that Bhagwan Bux, Ram Dulari and Raja Munni, who escape, as if through a passing, household scramble. The accused, according to the prosecution, pooled their strength to murder afore Kannaiya Bux Singh and to murder through mistake a friend that Vishwanath Panda and for no apparent reason, and innocent servant Ram Gopal.

In the instant case, nothing has come out to show that the prosecution witnesses has got enmity to falsely implicate the appellants in such a heinous crime. Further from the evidence of the witnesses, it is made out that Salim, the brother of the appellant, Samiul, had been died because of the snake bite and it was given out in the village that it was on account of witch craft of the deceased, so, the appellants went to the place of the occurrence for doing away with the life of the deceased and accordingly, Sakina Khatoon was the first victim of attack and when her daughter Ambud Nisa raised alarm, she was also assaulted. So, it cannot be said that the motive was not there. The motive may be flimsy, supertitious or unreasonable but the appellants were under the misconception that she was responsible for the death of Salim and so, motive has been well proved by the prosecution.