DHANNA LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE alleged homicidal death of Smt. Roshan Bai, and the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC has brought the appellant before this court. THE appellant has challenged the judgment dated 7. 4. 04 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ramganj Mandi, District Kota whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellant for the afore-mentioned offence and has sentenced him to life imprisonment and has imposed a find of Rs. 2,000/- and to further undergo a sentence of three months of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.

(2.) IN a nutshell the case of the prosecution is that on 5. 5. 02 Shri Radhey Shyam (P. W. 1) lodged a written report at Police Station Chechat wherein he claimed that between 10 and 11 a. m. while he was sitting in the Shop of Nanda Lodha, one Munna Baret came and informed him that his sister-in-law, Smt. Roshan Bai, was lying dead in the 'khadi' (gorge ). He immediately went to the place and there he saw that his sister-in-law was lying dead and that she had sustained an injury on her head. He further claimed that the appellant had hit her on the head with an axe and he saw him running away from the scene of the crime. He further alleged that one Durgi Bai, Jatan Bai and Ramesh Bai had seen the occurrence. These three ladies had tried to rescue the deceased. When these ladies had raised a hue and cry, then Jawahar and Munna Baret had rushed to the place of occurrence. Lastly he claimed that his sister-in-law had gone into the 'kakria khadi' in order to cut and collect wood. On the basis of this report the police registered a formal FIR, FIR No. 43/02, and commenced the investigation. IN order to prove its case the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and submitted 28 documents. IN his defence the appellant neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. However, his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded wherein he denied the case of the prosecution. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as afore- mentioned. Hence this appeal before this court.

(3.) HOWEVER, the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the absence of motive in a case of direct evidence is irrelevant. In case of direct evidence even if the motive does not exist, even then, the accused can be convicted on the basis of the direct evidence of the eye-witnesses. After all, motive is difficult to discover as it lies deeply buried in the mind of the accused. Therefore, even if a motive has not been proved by the prosecution, this being a case of direct evidence, the absence of motive is not fatal to the prosecution case. Thus, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is unsustainable.