1. This appeal is directed against the judgment D/- April 7, 1982 of Shri P. K. Bahri, Additional Sessions Judge, Shahadara Delhi by which he has found the appellant Ishwar Singh guilty of offence under S. 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant along with one Mangat Ram were tried for an offence under S. 302/34 I.P.C. but the learned trial Judge acquitted Mangat Ram for the reasons mentioned in his judgment. Since there is no acquittal appeal we are not concerned with Mangat Ram.
2. We may give a brief resume' of facts that led to the prosecution of the appellant and Mangat Ram. Prosecution case is that deceased Sukh Dayal and his wife Ram Piari were residing as tenants of one Dittu Ram in House No. 2790, Lane No. 6-B, Raghvirpura No. 2. Mangat Ram acquitted accused is the son of landlord. Appellant was also residing in the same lane just opposite the house of Dittu Ram. It is said that Dittu Ram wanted the deceased to vacate the tenanted premises.
3. On 5th of August, 1980 at about 4 p.m. while the deceased Sukh Dayal and his wife Ram Piari PW-6 were present in their room both the accused are stated to have come there and asked Sukh Dayal to come out. After Sukh Dayal deceased came out of his room the appellant Ishwar Singh alias Baa asked Sukh Dayal deceased whether he would vacate the house or not and while this was going on, Ram Piari PW-6 also came out and told them that they would vacate the house. Thereafter Ishwar Singh appellant is stated to have stabbed Sukh Dayal deceased with a knife like thing in the chest. PW-8 Shiv Dayal brother of deceased Sukh Dayal is stated to have arrived at the scene and he is also said to have seen the appellant Ishwar Singh stabbing the deceased. An attempt was made by Shiv Dayal PW-8 to catch the accused but the accused managed to escape. The deceased Sukh Dayal fell in the lane. Ram Piari tried to stop the bleeding of deceased by putting a cloth bag on his wound and then both of them removed the deceased to J.P.N. Hospital. On their way to J.P.N. Hospital in a three wheeler scooter Sukh Dayal deceased is said to have succumbed to the injuries and he was declared dead at the hospital as per casualty slip Ex. PW7/A6. It is also said that meanwhile police control room had transmitted the message to the police station Gandhi Nagar which was recorded at 4.40 p.m. at Seriall No. 42-B by PW-9 constable Satpal wherein it was mentioned that a quarrel has taken place at lane No. 6 Raghuvirpura No. 2. A copy of this report marked Ex. PW. 2/A was handed over to ASI Ram Murti PW-14 for spot inquiry. ASI Ram Murti accompanied by constable Anand Singh PW-2, Prem Kumar, Devinder Kumar and Dara Singh immediately there after went to the scene where he learnt that the injured had already been removed to the hospital. He thereafter leaves behind three constables at the scene of occurrence and accompanied by constable Anand Singh rushes to JPN Hospital where he meets Ram Piari. In the hospital Ram Piari, PW-6 made the statement Ex. PW-6/A before Ram Murti ASI and on the basis of this statement FIR No. 1218/80, Police Station Gandhi Nagar was brought into existence. A copy of this FIR was admittedly received by the local Magistrate at 10.15 a.m. on 6th August, 1980. After recording the statement of Ram Piari, PW-6 in the hospital and after forwarding the same to the police station for registration of F.I.R. ASI Ram Murti returns to the scene of occurrence and conducts father investigation of the case. Apart from getting the site photograph he also lifted blood, bloodstained earth and control earth and a cloth bag P-6 stained with blood and prepared the seizure Memo Ex. PW7/A4 in the presence of constable Anand Singh and Roop Chand PW 13. He also prepares the site plan EX. PW14/A at the instance of Shiv Dayal. On the following day i.e. on 6th of August 1980 he prepares the inquest paper Exs.PW7/A1, A2, A3 and A5. The dead body was identified by Shiv Dayal brother of the deceased and Chander Bhan PW 12 and the post-mortem of the dead body was conducted by PW-7 Dr. Bishnu Kumar at 10. 30 a.m. on 6th August P.W. 7 on conducting the post-mortem of the deceased found the following injuries on the person of deceased :
1. Incised punctured wound 4.5 x 1.4 cm., oblique on the upper front left side of chest, in second inter-costal space, lower inner end 2 cm. from mid line while upper outer end 5.5 cm. from mid line. Both the margins were clean cut and upper margin was slightly bevelled. Both the angles were actually cut. This injury was chest cavity deep and was 129 cms. above left heel.
2. Abrasion 3 x 1 cm. over top of right shoulder.
3. Abrasion 0.8 x 0.8 cm over outer part of right elbow.
4. Incised wound 2 x 0.3 cm. bone deep, horizontal, on the back of right ring finger-over proximal inter-Phalyngeal joint (defense wound).
5. Incised wound 1.5 x 0.2 cm., horizontal, in line with injury No. 4 over the back of right little finger just above to proximal inter-phalyngeal joint (defense wound).
4. On post-mortem he discovered that injury No. 1 had entered the chest cavity and after cutting the second left costal cartilage it went through the lung by making a cut of 3 cm on the surface of the upper front and the same was 4 cms. deep in the substance of lung in collapsed state. The total depth of this injury was about 7 to 8 cms. Death according to the doctor was due to haemorrhage and shock consequent to injury and the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He opined that all the aforesaid injuries were ante mortem and recent and injuries Nos. 1, 4 and 5 could be possible by sharp edged cutting weapon like dagger Ex. P1. He also opined that injury Nos. 4 and 5 were defense wounds. A corresponding cut on shirt Ex. P-4 of the deceased was also noticed. Doctor's report is Ex. PW-7/A. P-1 vest, P-2 underwear, P-3 towel, P-4 shirt and P-5 Bush-shirt found on the dead body were converted into a parcel and were handed over to constable Anand Singh together with the sample blood of the deceased and the sample seal of doctor Bishnu Kumar and these were deposited in Malkhana as per memo Ex. PW2/B.
5. The prosecution case farther is that on 6-8-80 appellant Ishwar Singh was arrested from a hotel belonging to one Pasi. At the instance of Shiv Dayal PW-8 and on interrogation in the presence of constable Udaivir Singh and Constable Jogi Ram PWs. 3 and 4 he is said to have made a disclosure statement to the effect that the weapon of offence (dagger) has been buried by him near a kikkar tree situated near the wall of house of one Kamal Singh in village Gonda. His disclosure statement Ex. PW3/A came to be recorded near the hotel itself and consequent to this disclosure statement appellant Ishwar Singh is stated to have led the police party to the site and dug out the dagger P. 4 which was wrapped in polythene paper. The blade of the dagger was found bloodstained. A sketch Ex. PW3/B of the dagger was drawn and after converting the same into a sealed parcel a Memo Ex. PW3/C was duly prepared and the seal was handed over to constable Udaivir Singh. The case property was also got examined by C.F.S.L. and the report of the forensic expert marked Exs.PW4/D, E and F was received which indicated that the blood lifted from the spot and blood contained on the cloth bag and the clothes of the deceased and also on the dagger tallied with the sample blood of the deceased. The bloodstained earth and the control earth also tallied with each other in respect of their density gradient distribution of particles and other physical characteristics.
6. A number of witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in support of the case but from our point of view the main witnesses with whom we are concerned and on whose testimony depends the success or otherwise of the case are two eye-witnesses Ram Piari PW-6 and Shiv Dayal PW-8. The statement of PW-7 Dr. Bishnu Kumar is also important. Besides this, apart from the report of forensic expert the important witnesses in is case are PW 14 ASI Ram Murti, PW-3 Udai Vir Singh constable and PW-4 Jogi Ram Constable.
7. We have heard the learned counsel at length and we have carefully gone through the record. Before we deal with points raised by Bawa Gurcharan Singh on behalf of the appellant we may state that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while convicting the appellant is disbelieved the presence of PW-8 Shiv Dayal and has also disbelieved the disclosure statement of the appellant and the consequent recovery of the dagger P-1 at the instance of the appellant. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has also rather indirectly said that there has been a delay in sending the report to the Magistrate concerned and also in holding the inquest proceedings and that both these lapses have not been explained by the prosecution. He has however attributed the lapses in this regard to the incompetence and inexperience of the investigation officer ASI Ram Murti. As for the effect of these lapses on the case is concerned the learned Judge has made the following observations :
'At any rate these lapses of the I.O. in the present case have not adversely affected the credibility of testimony of Ram Piari, She being the most natural witness could have hardly any reason to allow the real assailant to go scotfree and implicate an innocent person for the murder of her husband.'
8. We are deliberately making a reference to this observation of the learned trial Judge as Bawa Gurcharan Singh learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently canvassed this aspect of the case before us to highlight his contention that the FIR in this case is ante-timed and ante-dated and this fact by itself is sufficient to throw out the prosecution case. We would thereforee, take up this aspect for consideration in the first instance. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the occurrence in this case has taken place at 4 p.m. and the statement of Ram Piari came to be recorded by ASI Ram Murti in the hospital and was forwarded to the police station at 5.40 p.m. on 5-8-80. The FIR was registered at 6.20 p.m. on 5-8-80 but it was actually received by the local Magistrate at 10.15 a.m. on 6-8-80. He contends that since the prosecution has failed to explain as to why the report was delivered to the local Magistrate so late and since the inquest proceedings were delayed till the morning of 6-8-1980 it is only reasonable to infer that the FIR came into existence somewhere on the morning of 6th August, 1980 and not at 6.20 p.m. on 5-8-80 as the prosecution would like the court to believe. He has further submitted that the statement of Ram Piari PW-6 in fact has been recorded by one Anand Singh constable who has also scribed the inquest papers and the FIR was purported to have been taken to the local Magistrate by one Kishan Chand constable and both these persons have not been examined at trial. He has further submitted that even Ram Piari PW-6 has said that two to three papers were got thumb impressed by the police from her but she does not know what those papers were. According to him it is rather strange that even though ASI Ram Murti reaches the hospital immediately after the occurrence and finds the deceased dead he does not hold any inquest proceedings which are in fact held by Anand Singh constable on the next day at 8.30. He further submits that there is evidence on record that PW-6 Ram Piari and PW-8 Shiv Dayal went to the hospital on 6-8-80 in a police van along with Ram Murti ASI and other constables and that it is reasonable to infer that they brought the FIR into existence at that time and then simultaneously sent it to the Magistrate as well as to the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. He wants us to consider all these facts as also the fact that there is no entry in the hospital record that Ram Piari got the deceased admitted to the hospital and on this basis to hold that the FIR in this case was not in existence on 5th of August and the assailants of the deceased were not known on 5th. He has also submitted that even though in the statement of Ram Piari, Mangat Ram has been named as one of the accused, there is no mention of him by name in the inquest paper and that the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn by the court on the basis of these facts would be that the FIR is ante-timed and ante-dated.
9. We have given our careful thought to what has been argued before us. As already stated, the learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that there has been a lapse on the part of the investigation officer to explain the delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate and the delay in drawing the inquest proceedings but after considering the facts of the case the learned trial Judge has found that these lapses in no way can discredit the testimony of PW-6 Ram Piari and the lapses have been attributed to the incompetence of the investigating officer. Bawa Gurcharan Singh learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on : 1975CriLJ1734 in order to put across his point that if FIR is found to have been written after inquest report was prepared the FIR shall lose its authenticity. We do not dispute the proposition of law but in criminal cases facts are very important inasmuch as finding on such important points cannot be recorded without taking into consideration the effect of the evidence in its totality. In this case the appellant cannot derive any benefit from the fact that the statement of Ram Piari Ex. PW-6/A and the inquest proceedings have in fact been drawn by constable Anand Singh who has not been examined. PW-14 Ram Murti has no doubt admitted that these documents have been scribed by Anand Singh constable but, he has nowhere said that Anand Singh constable has done it on his own. It is not disputed that PW-14 Ram Murti was himself present on both the occasions and it is reasonable to hold that constable Anand Singh has done so at his instance. Constable Anand Singh as such is only a scribe of these documents. How thereforee it helps the appellant we have not been able to appreciate. As far the second objection is concerned Ram Piari PW-6 has named Mangat Ram in her statement Ex. PW6/A forming the basis of FIR. In the inquest report he is described as the son of landlord which in other words has a reference to accused Mangat Ram. This fact also is not such as to lead to a conclusion that the FIR in this case is ante-timed and ante-dated. In substance the second accused is sufficiently identified in both these documents.
10. In order to come to a correct conclusion in this regard the Court will have to bear in mind the chain and sequence of event that took place. This case is surrounded by certain undisputed facts which are that immediately after the occurrence information is sent from the police control room to police station Gandhi Nagar in pursuance of which ASI Ram Murti together with four constables is deputed to proceed on spot. Immediately ASI Ram Murti PW-14 together with four constables reached the spot. He finds nobody present at the scene of occurrence. He further finds a lot of blood on the scene and learns that the deceased has been removed to the JPN Hospital. He leaves three constables there and proceeds to JPN hospital in the company of constable Anand Singh. On reaching JPN Hospital he finds the deceased dead and also finds PW-6 Ram Piari present. He is said to have recorded the statement of PW-6 Ram Piari and forwarded the same under his endorsement to the police station for registration of FIR, which is recorded at 6.20 p.m. It is not disputed that Ram Piari was not in her house when ASI Ram Murti reaches the scene of occurrence. The court is told by the prosecution that the deceased was in fact removed to the hospital by his wife Ram Piari PW-6 and by his brother Shiv Dayal PW-8. If neither the wife nor the brother is present at the scene of occurrence at the time when Ram Murti ASI reaches there the question that arises for consideration would be as to where did they go Admittedly the occurrence has not taken place on a site other than the one which has been identified in the site plan. If the deceased fell a victim to the injuries at that site it would naturally be his wife or his kith and kin who would remove him to the hospital. Under the circumstances it can hardly be disputed that Ram Piari PW-6 and Shiv Dayal PW-8 had removed the deceased to the hospital. Having found the deceased dead in the hospital it would naturally be the attempt of the investigating officer Ram Murti ASI to contact Ram Piari who accompanied the dead body and to ask her about the details. He just could avoid to record her statement. That by itself goes to negative the defense suggestion that the FIR is ante-timed and ante-dated. It is not correct that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has held the FIR ante-timed or ante-dated nor has he said that the FIR was recorded after the inquest proceedings were recorded. All that has been said by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is that the delay in sending the FIR to the local Magistrate and delay in drawing the inquest proceedings is a lapse on the part of the investigating officer but in view of the unimpeachable testimony of Ram Piari PW-6 it does not in any way affect the prosecution case. It is thereforee wrong to argue that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had not considered this aspect of the case. In fact he has made no observation in this regard and has only attributed it to the incompetence of the investigating officer. Moreover, if on consideration of the testimony of Ram Piari PW-6 the Court holds her as a truthful witness the mere fact that the FIR was sent to the Magistrate on the next day and the inquest proceedings were delayed by itself does not help the defense.
11. The Court just cannot record a finding in this regard on the basis of far-fetched inference and speculations. A finding of this nature can only be recorded on the basis of definite evidence whether direct or indirect. In the absence of any such evidence it is impossible for us to say that the FIR in the present case has been ante-dated. Delayed reporting of FIR to Magistrate is held to be objectionable on the ground that the FIR may be open to the suspicion of concoction. This is to provide a safeguard against unfair investigation, but the delay in sending the report to the Magistrate by itself does not result in discarding the prosecution case unless on the circumstance of a particular case it is clearly shown that the sending of the FIR to the Magistrate has been deliberately delayed with a view to concoct story. Hence, if on the facts and circumstances of a given case the court comes to the conclusion that the FIR was registered at the time and date as suggested by the prosecution the simple fact that it reaches the Magistrate late, by itself does not affect the prosecution case. Thus the fact that the report was sent to Magistrate late, by itself is of no significance unless it is accompanied by the evidence that it was done with a design to fabricate a story. We are thereforee of the view that there is no substance in the argument that the FIR in this case is ante-timed and ante-dated and we fully endorse the observations of the learned Judge that the delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate and in recording the inquest proceedings is attributable to the incompetence and inexperience of the investigating officer and it has absolutely no bearing on the merits of the case. Next we come to the disclosure statement made by the appellant and the recovery consequent to it. These events are witnessed by PW-14 ASI Ram Murti, PW-3 Udaivir Singh and PW-4 constable Jogi Ram. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has disbelieved the prosecution evidence on the ground that even though Ishwar Singh was arrested from Pasi's hotel at the instance of Shiv Dayal (he ?) has not been associated with the disclosure statement and the recovery. That it is impossible to believe that immediately after pointing out Ishwar Singh, he left. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has further observed that no public witnesses have been associated with the disclosure and the consequent recovery and it is not possible to believe the Explanationn of ASI Ram Murti that the public witnesses did not respond to join the investigation. He has further disbelieved the recovery on the ground that the vehicle No. DHC 7168 which ASI Ram Murti is supposed to have used from 5.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. on that date in going and coming back from village Gonda, the place wherefrom the recovery was made, was in fact used by SHO from 6.30 p.m. to 10.45 p.m. as revealed by the records of the police station. The learned Sessions Judge has felt that since ASI Ram Murti has lied it is not possible to believe that Ishwar Singh made the disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the dagger. The evidence that the dagger was found to be stained with the blood group of the deceased has been brushed aside by him as immaterial.
12. We are not in agreement with the observations of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. In the first place we may point out that ASI Ram Murti has clearly explained that even though he asked public witnesses to get associated with the disclosure and the recovery, none came forward. We do not find any sufficient reason to disbelieve his statement particularly in view of the common experience of all of us that people are greatly reluctant to co-operate with the police in such matters for a variety of reasons and there is as such absolutely no reason for us to disbelieve ASI Ram Murti in this regard. The fact that Shiv Dayal PW-5 has not been associated with the disclosure and the recovery is not at all material because he is brother of the deceased and associating him with the disclosure and the recovery might have been considered to be improper by ASI Ram Murti. The simple fact that ASI Ram Murti has lied that he used the vehicle No. DHC 7168 which was in fact used by the SHO from 6.30 p.m. to 10.45 p.m. by itself is not sufficient to distrust him particularly in view of the fact that the dagger was recovered at the instance of the appellant. Ishwar Singh was found to be smeared with the blood group of the deceased. This fact together with the fact that it was recovered on the next day of the occurrence goes to show that there is nothing unfair in the investigation of this case and we do not find any sufficient reasons to disbelieve PW-3 Udaivir Singh and PW-4 Jogi Ram constables who have also testified in this regard.
13. This calls for an examination of the defense evidence. The defense evidence in fact concerns this aspect of the case. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not made any reference to it as he felt it was unnecessary to do so in view of his finding on this aspect of the case. Two witnesses Shri Surinder Pal clerk of Shri G. D. Dhaunka Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahadara, D.W. 1 and Shri P. L. Bahl, advocate D.W. 2 have been examined. D.W. 1 has identified the signatures of the learned Magistrate on applications DA/1 and DA/2 which only go to show that these applications were undoubtedly presented before the Magistrate on 6-8-80. D.W. 2 Shri P. L. Bahl has said that the applications DA/1 and DA/2, which in fact are the same about which mention has been made by DW 1 were presented by him before the Magistrate and the accused Ishwar Singh was present. That since it was lunch hour he made the accused to sit in the court room. That within minutes he was informed that the accused has been taken by the police and he wrote this fact in the application before presenting the same. He has identified Ishwar Singh in the court as the same person. The testimony of Mr. Bahl suffers from a number of infirmities. We believe Mr. Bahl must be a very busy man catering to a large number of clientage. From his own account Ishwar Singh came to him for the first time on that date. It is impossible to believe that he could 1 1/2 years thereafter remember the accused and identify him. In the second place the first application is for bail in which no mention is made that the accused wants to surrender, though it is signed by the accused Ishwar Singh. The second application DA/2 is for identification parade but it is not signed by the accused. It is signed by Mr. Bahl. This clearly goes to show that only signed application for bail was brought to him and when the necessity for making application DA/2 was felt it was signed by Mr. Bahl. If the accused were present he would have definitely signed this application also. In none of these applications it is mentioned that the accused is surrendering. The evidence of Mr. Bahl that the accused Ishwar Singh was arrested by the police from the court room is based on hearsay and none from those in whose presence the accused was allegedly arrested has come forward to testify about it. All these facts when considered in their totality will go to show that even though accused had sent an application for bail he was personally not present in the court on 6-8-80. The accused has set up a positive case regarding his arrest from a place other than the one set up by the prosecution. Having set up a positive case about the manner and place of arrest one would expect him to prove so by cogent evidence. We have however noticed that he has failed to do so. When such is the state of affairs the court would be justified in showing due respect to the prosecution evidence on this aspect of the case. This would be particularly so because the dagger recovered at the instance of the accused was stained with the blood group of the deceased.
14. Now as for Shiv Dayal PW-8 is concerned we find that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has given sufficient reasons in support of his finding that he was not present at the time of incident. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that because of a variety of reasons there are sufficient grounds to doubt that he has seen the occurrence and in this regard one of the main reason is that he lives a little away from the scene of occurrence along with his family and his presence in the house of the deceased at that time is doubtful. The other reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge are that Shiv Dayal is not associated with any seizures and recoveries. We do not find any serious infirmity in the observations of the learned Sessions Judge that Shiv Dayal PW-8 does not seem to be an eye-witness but to say that he did not appear on the scene at all would be a little too much. In her very first statement Ex. PW-6/1 which formed the basis of FIR in this case Ram Piari, PW-6 has said that when her husband was stabbed Shiv Dayal, younger brother of the deceased also reached over there. In her statement at trial however she says that at the time of occurrence Shiv Dayal was present in her house but then goes on to say that during those days Shiv Dayal was living in Lane No. 4 with his wife and three children. Shiv Dayal himself in his statement has said that at the time of occurrence he was present in the house of the deceased and that in the first instance only deceased and his wife came out and he only came out when the deceased cried 'Maar Gaya'. He admits that these words he has not said when he made the statement before the police and further says that he in fact brought the scooter. He admits that during those days he was residing in Lane No. 4 with his wife and children and further says that it takes about five minutes to cover the distance between his house and the house of the deceased. Also says they had joint kitchen. All this will go to show that Shiv Dayal PW-8 in all probability has not seen the occurrence, but in all probability he seems to have reached the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. Possibly and in all probability it is he who brought the three-wheeler scooter to remove the deceased to the hospital and he together with Ram Piari PW-6 took the deceased to the hospital. We are thereforee of the view that there is no serious infirmity in the observations of the learned Sessions Judge that Shiv Dayal is not an eye-witness and we find that the conclusion in this regard has legitimately been drawn. It would however be wrong to say that he was not associated with the removal of the deceased to the hospital.
15. Now adverting to the real question the deceased has died as a result of the injury No. 1 noted by PW-7 Dr. Bishnu Kumar, the total depth of the injury was 7 to 8 cms. and according to doctor it was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It will be unfair to state that there is variance between the medical evidence and the testimony of Ram Piari PW-6. There are of course five injuries which were noticed on the person of the deceased. Injuries Nos. 4 and 5 have been described as defense wounds by Dr. Bishnu Kumar and injuries Nos. 2 and 3 can easily be explained if it is recalled that soon after receiving the stab wounds the deceased fell on his back which in all probability has resulted in the abrasion over the top of his right shoulder and abrasion over the right part of elbow. In this case Ram Piari PW-6 has clearly said that one single stab wound was inflicted by the appellant on her husband Sukh Dayal deceased. In fact her testimony is absolutely consistent with the medical evidence. On an ultimate analysis we find that the entire case depends on the testimony of PW-6 Ram Piari who has in clear and unequivocal terms stated that the accused Ishwar Singh inflicted the stab wound on the person of Sukh Dayal her deceased husband at the time and date as mentioned in the FIR. It was however argued that she is an interested witness and should not be believed for two vital reasons. In the first place it is suggested that she has introduced Shiv Dayal PW-8 as another eye-witness and since the Sessions Judge has also come to the conclusion that Shiv Dayal was not an eyewitness she should not be relied upon as there is a deliberate attempt on her part and on the part of the prosecution to introduce false witness. We may at once point out that all that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has said is that the presence of Shiv Dayal at the scene of occurrence is doubtful and the least that according to him should be done is to discard his testimony. We in our observations stated above have concurred with the observations of Sessions Judge though to our mind it appears that he did appear at the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident and with the help of Ram Piari carried the deceased to JPN Hospital. The other point raised is that she is an interested witness as the father of Mangat Ram acquitted accused was cited as witness against her, her deceased husband and Shiv Dayal in a murder case and that there had been an attempt on their part to hide this fact though PW-8 Shiv Dayal has ultimately admitted it. This argument is pressed into service with a view to make us cautious in approaching the testimony of Ram Piari PW-6. We, however, find that this also cannot help the appellant. Ram Piari PW-6 seems to be a natural and disinterested witness. She has only testified to what happened in her presence. If she were really interested to take revenge on her landlord then she would definitely bhave attributed a more serious role to accused Mangat Ram son of the landlord. In fact all she has said is that Mangat Ram accompanied by appellant Ishwar Singh came to their house and asked her husband to vacate the tenanted premises and that even though she offered to vacate, it was Ishwar Singh immediately stabbed her deceased husband. This goes to show that she is a truthful witness. Under the circumstance the big question with which the court is faced is whether Ram Piari should be disbelieved simply because the landlord had appeared as a witness against them. It should not be forgotten that if her aim was to falsely implicate persons on the basis of a previous enmity she could have easily involved Mangat Ram by assigning him a greater role in the commission of this crime. It is thereforee impossible to discard the testimony of Ram Piari which to our mind appears to be unimpeachable and creditworthy. It was also argued before us that the MLC in this case was neither collected nor produced by the prosecution. While pressing this argument it is forgotten that deceased has died on his way to the hospital and he was received in the casualty department dead. The Casualty Department in its record Ex. PW7/A6 has clearly said that the deceased was brought dead to the casualty and was alleged to have been stabbed. Under the circumstance there was no question of recording the MLC and the very fact that he was alleged to have been stabbed goes to show that he was definitely accompanied by PW-6 Ram Piari who in all probability gave the information that he has been stabbed. Apart from this the learned counsel for the appellant also made reference to some discrepancies in the testimony of Ram Piari PW-6 which to our mind are not at all material and in no way go to impeach her credit. The occurrence took place in front of the house of the deceased. The presence of PW-6 in the house at the time of the occurrence is both natural and probable. She is completely a natural witness to the occurrence.
16. The last point that has been argued before us is that the appellant had no motive to kill the deceased. It was submitted that there is no evidence to the effect that at any stage earlier to the occurrence the deceased had been on bickering or rough relations between the parties on this account. That even if it were so once they had agreed to vacate the premises there was no question of harming the deceased at all. Indeed, we do not have any evidence in this case regarding the background of any quarrel between the landlord and the deceased so as to provide a motive for the murder. It is however not all necessary in all such cases to prove motive. In the present case the unimpeachable testimony of Ram Piari PW-6 has clearly established that the appellant stabbed her husband Sukh Dayal' who died as a result of this injury. There is thereforee no question of entering into controversy that the appellant had no motive to kill the deceased. When there is otherwise convincing direct evidence to prove the guilt of the accused the absence of motive is of no consequence. If in such a case evidence of motive is available it can provide further corroboration. Proof of motive helps the Court in forming correct conclusions in the absence of direct evidence. In a case where direct evidence breaks down the evidence regarding motive becomes unimportant. The absence of evidence regarding motive only calls for a minute and close scrutiny of other evidence. In the presence of direct evidence connecting the accused with the commission of crime the absence of motive in this case is immaterial
17. For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the case against the appellant Ishwar Singh stands sufficiently proved and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was completely justified in holding him guilty and convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment under S. 302, I.P.C. This appeal fails and is dismissed.
18. Appeal dismissed.