STATE OF U.P. versus BABU RAM

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1201 · Decided: 11-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATEOFU.P. 
V. 
BABU RAM 
APRIL 11, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 8-Motive-Evidentiary value-Failure to 
prove motive-Consequenqes of-Whether prosecution case wouldfailfor its 
failure to prove the motive-Held, No-Whether inability to prove motive 
A 
B 
would weaken prosecution to any perceptible limit-Held, No. 
C 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Triple Murder-Case of patri-
cide-cum-matricide-cum-fraticide-Circumstantial evidence-Conviction based 
on-Sustainability upheld-Unmerited acquittal passed by High Court set 
aside in appeal-Sentence of death altered to imprisonment for life. 
The respondent was prosecuted for committing triple murder of his 
father, mother and brother. The trial Court convicted him for the offence 
u/S. 302 Indian Penal Code, imposing the extreme penalty of death. How-
ever, on appeal, respondent was acquitted by a Dhision Bench of the High 
Court. This appeal by special leave had been filed by the State challenging 
the order of acquittal. 
The Prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence was that the 
respondent, the eldest son in the family was pestering his parents to part 
with a portion of their landed property in his favour but as that demand 
was not acceded to, he killed his parents and younger brother; that at the 
time of the incident, respondent and the three murdered were in the house 
and all the deceased were found absent iri the house; that the respondent 
told that the three deceased persons had gone to attend the festival in a 
temple and later, he told his brothers and sisters that they were killed by 
him in association with 4 other persons and dead bodies were buried in a 
pit dug on the verandah and the respondent pointed out the spot wherefrom 
the dead bodies disinterred and when tte Investigating Officer questioned 
the respondent he told about concealment of the spades and a bloodstained 
cloth which were recovered. 
The Sessions Judge convicted the accused relying upon these circum-
1201 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000] 2 S.C.R. 
stances but the Division Bench of the High Court acquitted him holding 
that the prosecution had failed to prove strong motive; that the site plan 
prepared by the Investigating Officer did not give particulars or details of 
place from where three dead bodies were disinterred and other material 
details were also missing and that the conduct of the Investigating Officer 
in not interrogating the accused as soon as he saw him created grave doubt 
regarding the genuineness of extra judicial confession as well as the state-
ment leading to the recovery of the article and the prosecution case. Hence 
this appeal by the State. The question raised for consideration was whether 
the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused by not placing any 
reliance on the prosecution evidence. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Motive is a relevant factor in all criminal cases whether 
based on the testimony of' eye witness or on circumstantial evidence. No 
doubt, if the prosecution proves the existence of a motive it would be well 
and good for it, particularly in a case depending on circumstantial evi-
dence, for, such motive could then be counted as one of the circumstances. 
However, it is generally a difficult area for any prosecution to bring on 
record what was in the mind of the accused. Even if the Investigating 
Officer would have succeeded in knowing it, through interrogations that 
cannot be put in evidence by them due to ban imposed by law. (1207 -C-E] 
Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar; (1998] 9 SCC 238 and State of H.P. v. 
Jeet Singh, [1999) 4 SCC 370, relied on. 
1.2. The present is not a case of complete dearth of motive. Respond-
ent himself said about the motive and PW-6 confirmed it. Such a motive 
may appear to some persons as inadequate for liquidating one's own 
parents. But any rancour burgeoning in the mind of an offender ci>n 
foment wicked thoughts which may even flame up to flash point. So it 
could not be held that the motive factor had weakened the prosecution 
case. (1208-B-C] 
, 1.3. The reasons of the Division Bench of the High Court for dropping 
down a sturdy circumstance of disinternment of the three dead bodies at the 
instance of the respondent were flimsy and tenuous. It is not possible to 
understand the rational of the reasoning that if the investigating officer did 
H 
not instruct the person who drew up

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