JUDGMENT M.C. Jain, J.
1. This is an appeal against the judgement dated 20.1.1982 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in S.T. No. 458 of 1980 whereby the two accused-appellants Gopi and Devi have been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and each sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. By order dated 23.1.06 Sri Ramesh Sinha was appointed amicus curiae to argue out the appeal for the accused-appellants.
3. We have heard Sri Ramesh Sinha for the accused-appellants and Sri R.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. from the side of the State.
4. The facts, shortly stated, are these: The incident took place in between the night of 25/26.6.1980 at about 2.30 O' clock in village Amrola, Police Station Janwa, District Aligarh. The F.I.R. was lodged by Gir Prasad PW 1 on 26.6.1980 at 6.30 A.M. Deceased of the incident was one Indal Singh-brother of the informant. The accused Gopi Ram had taken a loan of Rs. 50/- from the deceased Indal Singh in connection with illness of his brother Devi about 1 1/2 years before the incident. In the evening of 25.6.1980, Indal Singh demanded back his money and exchange of hot words ensued between the two on this account. The villagers intervened and at that time the accused had offered threat to Indal Singh. Indal Singh lived in small hamlet of village Amroli. The house of Indal Singh and his brother Gir Prasad was to the south of a narrow Rasta. There was a small Chabutara in front of their house on which only one cot could be put. In the eventful night, Gir Prasad was sleeping at that Chabutara. In front of this Chabutara across the lane was the Chabutara of Bhoodeo to the south of his house. On this Chabutara, witnesses Joti Prasad PW 2, Dev Dutt PW 3 and Babu Ram were sleeping. To the west of the house of Bhoodeo was the Kotha of Mihi Lal and on the Chabutara in front of his Kotha Indal Singh was sleeping. At about 2.30 A.M. the two accused reached the cot of Indal Singh and inflicted knife blows on him. On the alarm of Indal Singh, the informant and the other witnesses woke up and rushed towards Indal Singh. Gir Prasad and Dev Dutt flashed their torches and saw the accused causing knife blows to Indal Singh. On seeing the witnesses, the accused ran away towards west and could not be apprehended. Almost immediately thereafter Indal Singh died of the injuries. Gir Prasad PW 1 wrote report of the incident and lodged the same at the Police Station Janwa. Head Constable Amar Pal Singh PW 6 prepared chick report and registered the case in the G.D. Investigation was taken by N.K. Sharma-PW 7, the then S.O. of Police Station Janwa. He reached the spot and directed S.I. Banwari Lal-PW-4 to prepare inquest report. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared site-plan and also took the samples of blood-stained and simple earth from the place of occurrence. He also saw the torches of the witnesses and prepared Fard in this behalf. The dead body, after being sealed, was sent for post mortem which was conducted by Dr. N.K. Maheshwari PW 5 on 26.6.1980 at 4.30 P.M. The deceased was aged about 24 years and about half day had passed since he died. The following ante mortem injuries were found on his person:
1. Incised wound 1"x 1/2" x muscle deep on the left angle of mouth.
2. Incised wound 1" x 2/10" x muscle deep on the medial side of left clavical.
3. Incised wound 1 1/2" x 1/2 x 1/2" on the left side auxilla at posterior side.
4. Incised wound 2" x 1" x muscle deep on right arm 2" below shoulder medialy.
5. Incised wound 1/2" x 2/10" x muscle deep on the right shoulder (Ant.).
5. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries.
6. The defence was of denial and of false implication due to enmity.
7. The prosecution in all examined seven witnesses out of whom Gir Prasad PW 1, Joti Ram PW 2 and Deo Dutt PW 3 were eye-witnesses.
8. Believing the prosecution case, the trial judge recorded the impugned judgement.
9. It has first been argued for the accused-appellants that motive imputed by the prosecution was too weak. We should say that motive is insignificant in a case of direct evidence. Further, how and why human mind acts in certain manner cannot be explained every time by reasonable hypothesis. In the case at hand, there was direct eye-witness account of trustworthy three witnesses, namely, Gir Prasad PW 1, Joti Ram PW 2 and Devi Dutt PW 3 that it were the two accused appellants who committed the murder of the victim Indal Singh by knifing him in the fateful night. Not only this, there was motive too on the part of these two accused-appellants to commit this crime. It would be recalled that the prosecution case was that the accused-appellant Gopi had taken a loan of Rs. 50/- from the deceased Indal Singh in connection with illness of his brother accused-appellant Devi about 1 1/2 years before this occurrence which took place in between the night of 25/26.6.1980. The evidence was that in the evening of 25.6.1980 Indal Singh demanded back his money from him and exchange of hot words had taken place between the two. Though the villagers had intervened but the accused then went away threatening Indal Singh. Gir Prasad PW 1 was one of those who had intervened in that spat. Joti Ram PW 2 was also present at that time. He too gave evidence in this behalf while deposing as PW 2. This crime was committed by the two accused the same night to avenge the humiliation caused to them by the deceased in public. The instances are not uncommon where false sense of prestige leads to serious crimes. The trial court rightly observed that no motive could be said to be sufficient or insufficient in itself. It all depends upon the mentality of the perpetrator of the crime. Therefore, prosecution case could not be dented on the ground of alleged absence or insufficiency of motive on the part of the accused-appellants. The argument is rejected.
10. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellants next criticized the testimony of three eye-witnesses named above. It has been urged that all the three eye-witnesses were related. Gir Prasad ( informant) PW 1 was the brother of the deceased while Devi Dutt PW 3 was his cousin and Joti Ram PW 2 was also Baghel, belonging to the caste of the deceased and the other two witnesses named above. Scrutinizing the testimony of these three witnesses, we find that the same has a ring of truth. There was not even a whisper of any direct enmity between Gir Prasad PW 1 and the accused. There could absolutely be no reason for him to implicate the accused-appellants, leaving real assailant(s). All these three witnesses were residents of neighbourhood of the place of incident and had every reason to be present near the place where the occurrence took place. The incident took place in a small hamlet at a little distance from the main village. It came in evidence that in the said hamlet only Baghels resided. Therefore, only Baghels could be the witnesses of the occurrence which took place in night time. Gir Prasad PW 1 was sleeping on Chabutara in front of his house which could accommodate only one cot. Joti Ram PW 2 and Devi Dutt PW 3 were sleeping on the Chabutara in front of house of Bhoodeo across the lane whereas the deceased was sleeping on the Chabutara of the house of Mihi Lal situate in the west thereof. All these Chabutaras were in close proximity of each other and the said witnesses were well in a position to witness the incident. They were subjected to searching cross-examination, but nothing tangible came out to dislodge the central core of their version that they had seen the two accused-appellants knifing the deceased. The criticism levelled by accused-appellants against the testimony of the three eyewitnesses is wholly without foundation. No enmity, even remotely, could be shown between the accused -appellants and the other two witnesses Joti Ram PW 2 and Devi Dutt PW 3 either.
11. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellants urged that Gir Prasad (informant) PW 1 did not mention in the F.I.R. that he flashed his torch immediately on hearing the alarm. He also pointed out that he did not mention in the F.I.R. this either that Devi was present during the incident of previous evening. We agree with the learned trial judge that these factors could not create doubt about the correctness of the statement of the witnesses. The F.I.R. is not an encyclopaedia of every minute detail. It was mentioned in the F.I.R. that in the preceding evening Indal Singh demanded back his money from Gopi and both Gopi Ram and Devi had threatened him after villagers had intervened. The mention in the F.I.R. that both Gopi Ram and Devi had threatened the deceased in preceding evening indicated that both of them were present at that time. As the money was taken by Gopi Ram, it was natural that demand was made from him alone. But, as we said, both the accused-appellants had threatened the deceased at that time. Gir Prasad PW 1 clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. that he ran towards his brother- Indal Singh flashing his torch. True, it was not mentioned that Devi Dutt too had a torch. It was natural. The complainant could be more concerned with his own act. It was he who first saw the accused and he ran towards his brother flashing his torch. So, he mentioned about the flashing of torch by him. Out of remaining two witnesses, Devi Dutt PW 3 also had a torch. He ran towards the deceased with his flashing torch on hearing his shriek and he saw the two accused inflicting knife blows on him. In the Fard of torches also mention of two torches was made, one of Gir Prasad PW 1 and another of Devi Dutt PW 3 which were seen by the Investigating Officer and found in working condition. Rather, the recital of the F.I.R. is a pointer of its spontaneity, having been lodged without any consultation or deliberation.
12. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellants invited our attention to this part of the statement of Gir Prasad PW 1 that due to clouds it was a dark night and had there been no torch, the picture would have been murky. We do not think that his this statement can be exploited by the defence to its use in any manner. The artificial light of two torches being there, the clouds and the resultant darkness lost its relevance. The accused-appellants were well known to the witnesses from before whom they saw from close range with flashing torches while they were knifing the deceased.
13. Another argument of the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants was that accused-appellants did not take any precaution to conceal their faces at the time of the commission of this crime and it was unnatural. The argument is too generalized and we are afraid, if it is accepted, that would tantamount to mean that no murder can be committed by anybody with open face and if one does so, it is an improbability causing ripple in the prosecution version. The two accused-appellants knifed the deceased. They committed this murder to avenge the humiliation and insult suffered by them at his hands the preceding evening in public. It was, therefore, natural that they did so with open faces so as to let the victim know that it were they who were avenging themselves for the humiliation which he caused to them in the previous evening. At times, culprits derive sadistic pleasure in letting know the victim as to who were transporting him to other world. To come to the point, non-concealment of their faces by the accused-appellants in the present case is well explained.
14. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellants lastly argued that Investigating Officer did not send the blood-stained earth collected from the spot for chemical examination. Indeed, it would have been better if he had done so. But his remissness in not doing so, would not adversely affect the prosecution case. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that accused of heinous crimes should not be acquitted because of investigation being a little faulty, when other evidence providing their guilt is of conclusive and clinching nature. The same is the situation here. The testimony of three eye-witnesses was perfectly believable. It was well in conformity with the medical evidence, inasmuch as five incised wounds had been found on the person of the deceased. They were commensurate to the number of the accused who were two.
15. On careful consideration of the evidence on record and the attending circumstances in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants, we find that the appeal has no merit at all. The guilt of the accused-appellants was proved to the hilt.
16. Accordingly, we dismiss this Criminal Appeal No. 269 of 1982. The conviction of the accused-appellants-Gopi Ram and Devi under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. with the sentence of life imprisonment to each of them is affirmed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh shall cause them to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment passed by the trial judge.
17. Sri Ramesh Sinha, amicus curiae who argued the appeal on behalf the accused-appellants, shall get Rs. 1000/- as his fee.
18. The compliance shall be reported by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order which shall be sent by the office immediately.