SAYYED AHMAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HOLDING that the prosecution has successfully proved that the writing Ex.PW-1/A purportedly in the handwriting of the deceased Sohna Devi was written by the appellant as per the report Ex.PW-17/H of the handwriting expert Ms.Deepa Verma PW-19 and that PW-4, PW-9 and PW-10 had proved that the appellant had wanted to secret away 4 gunny bags which as per the seizure memo Ex.PW-7/A contained the body parts of deceased Sohna Devi, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellant of the offence of having murdered Sohna Devi. Further incriminating evidence held established against the appellant is that after he was apprehended he got recovered a saw after making a disclosure statement which saw was opined by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased to be the possible weapon used to cut the body of the deceased as per the report Ex.PW-11/B of Dr.Gaurav Aggarwal PW-11 who conducted the post-mortem of the body of Sohna Devi.

(2.) WITH reference to the testimony of Munni PW-1, learned counsel for the appellant conceded that the same establishes that Sohna Devi was found missing on the fourth day of May 2001 and a writing Ex.PW-1/A was recovered from her jhuggi. The said writing purports to be written by Sohna Devi and is addressed to one Asmat Bhaiya. It is written that Sohna was very unhappy and was going away. At the bottom of the writing the name Sona has been written. With reference to the seizure Ex.PW-7/A learned counsel for the appellant further conceded that it stands established that the dead body of Sohna Devi was recovered by the police from 4 gunny bags lying next to a drain and abutting the wall of the jhuggi of the appellant. Learned counsel further conceded that the post-mortem report Ex.PW-11/A of Sohna Devi establishes that she was murdered and body cut into pieces with a saw and that the saw got recovered by the police from the appellant was opined vide report Ex.PW-11/B as the possible saw with which the body was cut.

(3.) IT is true that motive plays an important role in every crime, but in relation to proof thereof, the law is at somewhat variance. Though desirable to be proved, but absence of proof of motive for a crime is not treated as fatal, if otherwise, the prosecution has led credible evidence wherefrom the guilt of the accused can be inferred. It need hardly be re-emphasized that the Evidence Act 1872 requires a fact to be treated as proved not upon 100% proof of a fact but to be treated as proved when after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought under the circumstances of the particular case to act upon the supposition that it exists.