GHASI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal under section 374 (2), Cr. PC. has been filed against the judgment and order dated June 3, 1981 and June 6, 1981 respectively passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Bundi in Criminal Case "no. 84/1980 whereby the accused persons have been convicted as under. Accused Appellant Kalu has been convicted under section 304, Part-I, IPC, to 5 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo a further imprisonment for a period of 6 months R. I. He has also been convicted under section 323, IPC, to 6 months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200/ -. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both sentences are to run concurrently. Accused-appellant Ghasi has been sentenced under section 304, Part-I read with section 34, IPC to 4 year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted under section 323 IPC, to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- In default of payment of fine he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 month.

(2.) IT will suffice to state for the purposes of this appeal that on 7-2-1980 Gordhan filed a verbal report at Police Station Kotwali, Bundi at 12. 40 a. m. which states that his brother Mathuralal and uncle Chunnilal who is suffering from typhoid were beaten by Ghasilal, Ghanshyam, Chothmal at about 10. 30 p. m. They accompanied by Bhawana Meena and Brijmohan Brahmin, resident of Borkhandi. On hearing shouts of his uncle his brother Mathuralal came to save the situation whereupon Kalu and Ghasi gave him blows with lathis on account of which he received injuries on his head. How eve-, no blood oozed out from head of Mathuralal. IT further states that he and Ram Chandra Gurjar on hearing shouts of his brother Mathuralal came and tried to save Mathuralal whereupon Ghasi gave one blow with lathi on Gordhan which hit him on left shoulder and second lathi was given by Kalu which hit him on left hand and Kalu also gave blow to Ram Chandra which hit to Ram Chandra on left hand. Ghasi also gave lathi blow to Ram Chandra on his head on account of which blood came out from his head. Thereafter Ghasi again gave blow with lathi to Ram Chandra which hit him on right leg. Complamant rushed to Phoolsagar and arranged Ambassador Car in which the injured was brought to Bundi Hospital. The report was not lodged at Dablana Police Station out of fear, therefore, the report was lodged at Bundi Police Station and it is further stated that injured Mathuralal is admitted in hospital at Bundi. After getting him admitted in hospital the complainant has come along with Ram Chandra to lodge the report which is Ex. P. 5 his report was registered without number and is marked Ex. P. 5. B. Since the incident came within the jurisdiction of Police Station Dablana therefore, a copy of this report Ex. P 5-8 was sent to Dablana for getting the offence registered whereupon Ek. P. 22 was registered and a case No. 35/80 under sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC, came to be investigated during investigation. Ram Chandra, Gordhan and Mathura were medically examined. X-rays of the injured persons were also taken. On death of injured Mathura postmortem of his dead body was also held. The accused person were arrested and on their information and guidance the sticks used in the incident were also recovered after investigation, the accused-persons were challaned under sections 148, 149, and 302 IPC and after the trial two of the accused-persons were sentenced to imprisonment as stated above and three of them were acquitted.

(3.) THE next contention raised by the learned counsel is that no motive has been proved on account of which the accused persons might have committed this crime. From the evidence discussed above it can be seen that it has been proved how the quarrel started. THE prosecution witnesses have clearly said that earlier to the incident they had no quarrel or enmity amongst themselves. It has also come in the evidence that when Chunnilal told accused-appellant Ghasi that it was improper to wear 'tahmad' while he moves out of the house he became enranged and the quarrel started. In any case, it may be pointed out that it is always not possible for the prosecution to prove motive for committing the crime. THEre is no doubt that proof of motive does satisfy the judicial-conscience about the likelyhood of the authorship of the crime, but its absence cannot wipe-out the effect of the evidence which has been brought on the record and this otherwise sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-persons. Motives are many a times shrouded in mistry and routed deep in the mind of the accused persons and it may not be always easy to prove the same. Motive can only land additional support of the findings of the Court regarding the guilt of the accused but if there is absence of clear motive it does not necessary lead to the conclusion that the accused-persons are not guilty of the offence alleged to have been committed by them. Mere absence of motive would not reflect upon the credibility of the witnesses who are otherwise considered to be reliable and whose statements inspired confidence. I, therefore, do not find any force in this contention of the learned counsel.