LexJARNAIL SINGH AND ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A JARNAIL SINGH AND ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA JANUARY 20, 1993 B [K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.) Criminal Law: Indian Penal Code, 1860: C Sections 302, 149 and 148-Motive-i?.elevilncy of-Held where positive evidence is cogen~ clear and reliable motive is of no importance-Family members-Eye-witnesses-Whether independent evidence required. Evidence Ac~ 1872: D Chapter IX-Murder-Evidence of family members as eye-witnesses-- Reliability of. The first appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 192/1980 and his four sons were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian E Penal Code, 1908 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonments for life. They were also convicted and sentenced to one year's rigorous im- prisonment under Section 148 of the Code. According to the prosecution, a son of the first appellan'l and a daughter of P.W. 4 fell in love with each other but due to opposition from F P.W. 4's husband, their marriage could not take place and both of them committed suicide, and therefore, the first appellant and his four sons had a grudge that P.W. 4's husband was responsible for the death of the first appellant's son; that two months thereafter when P.W. 4's husband and his elder brother were returning to the village from town in a bullock-cart G along with P.W. 4, P.W. 5, her daughter and P.W. 6, her son-in-law, the live accused, who were coming in a truck from the opposite direction got down from the truck, chased P.W. 4's husband and his elder brother, who were running away, and assaulted them with Gandasa and Lathies and after boarding the truck, drove the truck over the two brothers, t)iat when P.W. 4 to 6 went near the two brothers they found them dead and a First H Information Report was lodged, and a post-mortem was held. 260 - JARNAIL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 261 On the basis or the evidence adduced OD behalf of the prosecution, A Including that of PWs 4 to 6, the Session Judge came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the five accused were fully eatablished. This finding was upheld by the High Court. In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the accused persons it was contended that a false case bad been set up against them by PW 4, who had not seen the occurrence but having learnt the death of her husband and bis elder brother, became an eye-witness along with PWs 5 and 6, her daughter and son-in-law respectively, only· to implicate the accused persons, that there was no immediate motive for commission of such a serious offence in the facts al!d circumstances of the case, that it would not be proper to accept the motive alleged on behalf of the prosecu- tion and that the eye-witnesses being only the members of the family, some independent evidence was required. Dismissii1g the appeals, this Court, HELD: 1.1. Where the positive evidence against the accused is clear, cogent and reliable, the question of motive is of no importance. But, at the same time, motive behind a crime is a relevant fact and r.ormally prosecu- tion is expected to adduce evidence in respect thereto. Experience shows B c D that one or other motive moves the culprit to a certain course of action. E Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 460; Narayan Nafhu Naik v. The State i>f Maharashtra, A.l.R. 1971 S.C. 1656; Podda Narayana v. State of A.P., A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1252; Faquira v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 915 and Mo/u v. State of Haryana, A.l.R. 1976 S.C. 2499, relied on. 1.2. Normally there is a motive behind every criminal act and that is F why the Investigating agency as well as the Court while examining the complicity of an accused, first try to ascertain as to what was the driving force which compelled the accused to commit the crime in question. But with complex growth of society and which has also produced complex G characters, the actions and reactions of person either on the accuse side or on the prosecution side are not very easy to ascertain and judge. It is a matter or common experience that even a small or trifle incident has different reaction on different persons. That is why it is not always easy for the Court to weigh and judge as to whether under the circumstances H 262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 1 S.C.R. A brought ou n:cord by the prosecution, lo normal course the accused concerned could have acted as alleged by the prosecution. 1.3. In cases where prosecution is not able t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.