SMT. OMWATI ETC. versus MAHENDRA SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 07-11-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SMT. OMWATI ETC. 
v. 
MAHENDRASINGH AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 7, 1997 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 148, 3021149 and 3071149-Murder-
Trial of-All the accused held guilty-Convicted and senten_ced-High Court 
C set aside the conviction and sentence holding that prosecution has failed to 
establish the guilt of the accused-On appeal held, case of prosecution not 
proved beyond reasonable doubt-Motive not established-Entitled to benefit 
of doubt-No interference called for. 
The respondents were prosecuted for an offence under Sections 148, 
D 302/149 and 307/149 IPC. 
The prosecution case was that PW I and his son PW 3 as well as one 
'I' were going on a motor cycle from a village to another village. Along with 
them 'R' and his son 'D' were proceeding on another motor cycle. On the 
way they saw a tractor parked in the middle of the road and the accused were 
E standing near the tractor. One of the accused had a hasiya while others were 
having country made pistols. The motor cycles were stopped. The accused 
with pistols fired at · R' and he fell down on receiving the gun shot. The 
accused assaulted him with hasiya and gave several blows. · D' started to ran 
away but was chased and fired and on receiving the gun shot injuries he fell 
F 
down. Both 'R' and 'D' died on the spot. All the accused ran away but 
surrendered before the court after three or four days and pleaded not guilty 
stating that they were falsely implicated on account of enmity. The prosecution 
examined ten witnesses including PWs I to 3, who were the eye-witnesses. 
The Trial Court found all the accused guilty and convicted them. However, 
on appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence on the 
G ground that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. The case of the prosecution has not been proved beyond doubt 
H and there are certain factors which remain unexplained. Thus the accused 
88 
OMWATI v. MAHENDRA SINGH 
89 
are entitled to benefit of doubt. There is no justification to interfere with the A 
judgment of the High Court. 196-BI 
2.1. The motive for the murder as alleged by the prosecution has not 
been satisfactorily established. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased 
were working for one ·I' at the time of election of the Pradhan and the said 
'I' was defeated in the election and the accused won. If there was enmity on B 
account of election, the person against whom accused would have borne a 
grudge was the said 'I' who was present at the scene of occurrence. He was 
left untouched without even a scratch. There is nothing on record to show 
that there were clashes between the accused and the deceased or other 
supporters of'I' at any time before the incident. It is thus wholly improbable C 
that after a lapse of three years from the election the accused should bear 
such a grudge as to kill the deceased. The post-mortem report shows several 
deep incised wounds which according to PWs were caused by some sharp 
edged weapon like hasiya. It gives an impression that there was some deep 
seated enmity between the deceased and the assailants. But the evidence on 
record does not prove any such enmity. 192-E-H; 93-A-B] 
D 
2.2. No doubt, proof of motive is not necessary to sustain a conviction 
but when the prosecution puts forward a specific case as to motive for the 
crime, the evidence regarding the same has to be considered in order to 
judge the probabilities. It is well settled that motive for a crime is a satisfactory 
circumstance of corroboration when there is convincing evidence to prove E 
the guilt of an accused person but it cannot fill up a lacuna in the evidence. 
193-FI 
3. The opinion of the High Court that there were more than one 
assailant armed with sharp cutting weapons cannot be considered to be 
totally baseless or perverse. The High Court examined an expert Doctor who . F 
opined that the injuries on the body of the deceased could not be caused by 
a single blow of the hasiya. Considering the fact that as many as seventeen 
incised wounds were found on the body of deceased 'R', the High Court found 
it difficult to believe that he was assaulted by only one assailant with sharp 
cutting weapon. 193-C-E) 
4. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the connection between 
the tractor recovered from the scene and the accused 'M'. This goes a long 
way to shake

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.