JARNAIL SINGH AND ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

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,          B
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    c
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,
                                                                               D
       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
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.                                                                     F
      1.2. Normally there is a motive behind every criminal act and that is
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 to establish a motive
    behind the alleged crime it assumes importance specially in cases where
    the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence or on witnesses who have
B   an Inimical background. Proof of motive on the part of the accused
    persons to commit an offence satisfies the judicial mind about the
    likelihood of the authorship but in its absence it is only proper on the part
    of the Court to have a deeper search. But if the Court is satisfied th11t
    evidence adduced, oral or circumstantial, establishe5 the charge against
C   the accused, the prosecution case cannot be rejected saying that there was
    no immediate impelling motive on the part of the accused persons to
    commit the crime.

          1.4. In the present case, the son of the first appellant committed
D   suicide two months before the date of occurrence because of the attitude
    taken by PW 4's deceased husband. It can be said that there was no
    immediate motive which impelled the accused · persons to commit the
    murder of the two brothers in broad day light in such cruel manner. But
    the death of the son in a tragic circumstance must have shaken the family
    and there is nothing unnatural or uuusual that because of that, the first
E   appellant and his four sons having seen the deceased coming to village on
    bullock-cart decided to eliminate him.

           1.5. That apart, if the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution
    is accepted, then whether there was immediate motive for committing the
F offence looses all significance. 1be present case has mauy special features
    which weigh heavily against the accused persons and it is not easy on their
    part to dislodge them. In cases relating to murder the time taken in
    lodging the F.1.R. assumes special significance. The fact that P.W. 4
    lodged the F.1.R. within an hour of the occurrence giving the details of the
    manner of occurrence lends .corroboration to her testimony in Court
G   regarding the participation of the accused persons in the present occur-
    rrence. The manner of occurrence disclosed by P.W. 4 in the F .l.R. was
    fully corroborated by the post-mortem examiilatioo reports. The two doc-
    tors during post-mortem examinations found that htjury No. 7 on the
    chest of P.W. 4's husband and injury No. 11 on his brother could have
H   been caused by the wheel of the truck passing over the chest of P.W. 4's
          JARNAIL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [N.P. SINGH, J.]                263

    husband and any blunt part of the truck striking against the body of bis       A
    brother. This not only corroborates the version disclosed by P.W. 4 in the
    F.I.R. but goes a long way to establish the correctness thereof.

          1.6. The members of the family, if present at the time of occurrence
    are the most natural witnesses. The version dis-closed in the F.I.R. has
    been supported by 3 eye-•.ritnesses P.W. 4, P.W. S and P.W. 6. There is no     B
    reason to doubt their testimony only on the ground that they were closely
7   related to the victims. There is no evidence to show that any person after
    the occurrence appeared at the scene to engineer the present case against
    them. P.W. 4, whose husband and elder brother of her husband bad
    succumbed to the injuries, was left alone to pursue the post occurrence        C
    steps without help or assistance from anyone else.

           1.7. There is no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the
    trial court and affirmed by the High Court.

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                     Criminal Appeal      D
    Nos. 192-193 of 1980.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 4.9.1979 of the Punjab and
    Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 760 and 759 of 1977.

          R.L. Kohli, U.R. Lalit and K.K. Mohan for the Appellants.                E

          A.M. Singhvi, Ms. Renu George, Ms. Indu Malhotra and l.S. Goyal
    for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                   F
           N.P. SINGH, J. These appeals have been filed on behalf of five
    accused persons, who have been convicted under section 302 read with
    section 149 of the Penal Code for committing murder of Gurbux Singh and
    Wasava Singh and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonments
    for life. They have also been convicted under section 148 of the Penal Code    G
    and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

         It is the case of the prosecution that Rulwant Kaur, the daughter of
    Gurbux Singh (deceased} and Raghbir Singh, son of J arnail Singh, one of
    the accused fell in love with each other. As the· marriage could not
    materialise due to opposition, two months prior to the date of occurrence, H
    264                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1993] 1 S.C.R.

A both of them committed suicide. It is said that accused Jarnail Singh and
    his four sons who are the other four accused bad a grudge against Gurbux
    Singh that the latter was responsible for the death of Raghbir Singh
    aforesaid.

          On 25.9.1974 before noon Gurbux Singh, his elder brother Wasava
B Singh along with Surjit Kaur (PW 4) the wife of Gurbux Singh, Sukhwant
  Kaur (PW 5) the daughter of Gurbux Singh, and Surinder Singh (PW 6)
  son-in-law of Gurbux Singh were returning to their village from Sirsa in a
  bullock-cart after selling green fodder and making some purchases in the
  market. On the way they saw from the opposite side the five accused
C coming in a truct which stopped in front of the bullock cart. All the five
  accused persons got down from the truck and raised a Lalkara "DUSH-
  MANO KO JAN SE MAR DO JANE NA PA YEN". Accused Karma was
  armed with a Gandasa whereas the three brothers and Jarnail Singh were
  armed with lathis. Seeing the accused persons Gurbux Singh and bis
D brother Wasava Singh got down from the bullock-cart and started running
  away. They were chased and the accused persons assaulted both of them
  with their respective weapons. Ultimately they fell down. The accused
  persons then raised an alarm "BAHANCHOD BACH NA JAWEN
  TRUCK BHE UPAR PHER DO". Thereafter all the five accused persons
  boarded the truck. Accused Mohani sat at the steering wheel and drove
E the truck over the bodies of two victims Gurbux Singh and Wasava Singh.
  After the accused persons left Surjit Kaur (PW 4), her daughter (PW 5)
  and son-in-law (PW 6) went near the victims and found them dead.

            The First Information Report was lodged at 12.30 P.M. A copy of
F    the said F.l.R. reached the Magistrate concerned by 2.15 P.M. The Inves-
     tigating Officer reached the place of occurrence, held inquest and recorded
     the statement of witnesses including the aforesaid Sukhwant Kaur and
     Surinder Singh. PW 2 and PW 3 are doctors who held the post mortem
     examination of Gurbux Singh and Wasava Singh respectively the same day
     at 5.30 P.M. During the post mortem examination on the persons of
G    Gurbux Singh 13 injuries were found. Injury No. 7 was contusion 14" x 7
      JJ4 on the front of chest. On dissection, collection of blood was found and
     upper seven on right side and upper eight on left side of the ribs were
     found to have been fractured. Both lungs were badly lacerated. Heart was
     also badly lacerated along with pleura. According to the opinion of the
H    Doctor (PW 2), who held the post mortem examination of the body of
'
                JARNAIL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [N.P. SINGH, J.]                265
     c    Gurbux Singh, the aforesaid injury No. 7 could be caused by wheel of the       A
/        'truck passing over the portion of chest of the deceased. The Doctor (PW
         3), who held the post mortem examination of the dead-body of Wasava
          Singh, found 21 injuries on his person. Injury No. 11 found on the person
         of Wasava Singh was raddish contusion 11" x 1 1/2 on the middle of the
          upper part of the chest. According to the Doctor, the said injury No. 11
         could be possible by any blunt part of a truck striking against the body.
                                                                                         B
         During the investigation at the instance of accused Karma, the Gandasa
 7       with blood stain was recovered and lathis were also recovered from the
          possession of the accused persons,

               In view of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution includ-      c
         ing that of Surjit Kaur (PW 4), Sukhwant Kaur (PW 5) and her husband
         Surinder Singh (PW 6), the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion
         that the charges levelled against the five accused persons have been fully
,..._    established which finding has been upheld by the High Court.

                                                                                         D
                According to the appellants, a false case has been set up against them
         by Surjit Kaur (PW 4), the widow of Gurbux Singh, who had not seen the
         occurrence, but having learnt the death of Gurbux Singh and Wasava Singh
         became an eye witness along with her daughter and son-in-law only to
         implicate the accused persons. The counsel appearing for the accused
>        aforesaid pointed out that there was no immediate motive for commission         E
         of such serious offence in the facts and circumstances of the case and it
         shall not be proper to accept the motive alleged on behalf of the prosecu-
         tion that as the son of accused J arnail Singh and daughter of Gurbux Singh
         had committed suicide, as their marriage could not materialise because of
         the objection raised by Gurbux Singh, accused Jarnail Singh and his four        F
         sons chased the two victims on the road, and not only assaulted them but
-<
         also crushed them by the truck.

               It is true that normally there is a motive behind every criminal act
         and that is why the investigating agency as well as the Court while examin-
         ing the complicity of an accused, first try to ascertain as to what was th'e    G
         driving force which compelled the accused to commit the crime in ques-
,.___    tioo. But with complex growth of society and which has also produced
         complex characters, the actions and reactions of persons either on the
         accused side or on the prosecution side are not very easy to ascertain and
         judge. It is a matter of common experience that even a small or trifle          H
    266                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (1993] 1 S.C.R.

A   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 brought on record by the prosecution, in normal course the
    accused concerned could have acted as alleged by the prosecution.

          That is why this Court has repeatedly expressed the view that where
B   the positive evidence against the accused is clear, cogent and reliable, the
    question of motive is of no importance. Reference may be made to the
    cases of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460, Narayan
    Nathu Naik v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 1656 = [1971] 1
    SCR 133, Podda Narayana v. State of A.P., AIR 1975 SC 1252 = (1975) 4
C   SCC 153, Faquira v. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 915 = (1976] 1 SCC 662,
    and Molu v. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 2499 = (1976] 4 SCC 362. But
    at the same time it must be impressed that motive behind a crime is a
    relevant fact and normally prosecution is expected to adduce evidence in
    respect thereof. Experience shows that one or other motive moves the
D   culprit to a certain course of action. In cases where prosecution is not able
    to establish a motive behind the alleged crime it assumes importance
    especially in cases where the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence
    or on witnesses who have an inimical background. Proof of motive on the
    part of the accused persons to commit an offence satisfies the judicial mind
    about the liklihood of the authorship but in its absence it is only proper on
E   the part of the Court to have a deeper search. But if the Court is satisfied
    that evidence adduced oral or circumstantial establishes the charge against
    the accused, the prosecution case cannot be rejected saying that there was
    no immediate impelling motive on the part of the accused persons to
    commit the crime.
F
          In the present case Raghbir Singh, the son of accused Jarnail Singh,
    committed suicide two months before the date of occurrence because of
    the attitude taken by the deceased Gurbux Singh is not in dispute. It can
    be said that there was no immediate motive which impelled the accused
    persons to commit the murder of Gurbux Singh and Wasava Singh in broad
G   day light in such a cruel manner. But the death of Raghbir Singh in a tragic
    circumstance must have shaken the family and there is nothing unnatural
    or unusual that because of that Jarnail Singh and his four sons having seen
    Gurbux Singh coming to village on bullock-cart decided to eliminate him.

H         Apart from that if the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution
       JARNAIL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [N.P. SINGH, J.]              267

 is accepted then whether there was immediate motive for committing the A
 offence loses all significance. The present case has many special features
 which weigh heavily against the accused persons and it is not easy on their
 part to dislodge them. The occurrence took place before noon. The F.I.R.
 was lodged at 12.30 P.M. within an hour. A copy of the F.I.R. was received
 by the concerned Magistrate by 2.25 P.M., the same day. The Investigating
 Officer reached the place of occurrence before 4 P.M. Even the port
                                                                               B
 mortem examinations of the two victims were held by two doctors men-
 tioned above by 5.30 P.M. the same day. In cases relating to murder the
 time taken in lodging the F.1.R. assumes special significance. The F.l.R.
 being the frr~t version of the occurrence disclosed to the police acts as
 check on the part of the prosecution. The fact that Surjit Kaur (PW 4)      c
·lodged the F.l.R. within an hour of the occurrence, giving the details of the
 manner of occurrence lends corroboration to her testimony in Court
 regarding the participation of the accused persons in the present occur-
 rence. The manner of occurrence disclosed by Surjit Kaur (PW 4) in the
 F.l.R. was fully corroborated by the post mortem examination reports. She D
 stated in the F.l.R. at 12.30 P.M. that accused persons after having as-
 saulted the two victims with Gandasa and Lathis, crushed them with the
 wheel of the truck. The two doctors during post mortem examinations
 found that injury No. 7 on the chest of Gurbux Singh and injury No. 11 on
 Wasava Singh could have been caused by the wheel of the truck passing
 over the chest of Gurbux Singh and any blunt part of the truck striking E
 against the body of Wasava Singh. This not only corroborates the version
 disclosed by Surjit Kaur (PW 4) in the F.1.R. but goes a long way to
 establish the correctness thereof. It Surjit Kaur (PW 4) had not witnesse<l
 the occurrence as suggested by accused persons then how she could have
 mentioned in the F.l.R. that after assaulting the two victims the accused F
 persons entered into the truck and crushed the victims with the wheel of
 the truck, which is supported ·by the post mortem examination.

      The learned counsel could not point out from the evidence of Surjit
Kaur (PW 4) which has been fully accepted by the Trial Court as well as
the High Court as to on what ground that should be rejected. The same is G
the position so far the evidence of Sukhwant Kaur (PW 5) and Surinder
Singh (PW 6). About Sukhwant Kaur (PW 5) it was pointed out that she
was not present at the place of occurrence when the Investigating Officer
reached and she came only later. However, so far Surinder Singh (PW 6)
is concerned, he was present when the Investigatior. Officer reached the H
    268                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1993] 1 S.C.R.

A place of occurrence. It was urged on behalf of the accused persons that
    although Surjit Kaur (PW 4) had claimed in her evidence that she had
    made purchases in the market before returning to the village but no such
    article was found in the bullock-cart. On behalf of the accused the tradi-
    tional and conventional argument that the eye witnesses being only the
    members of the family, some independent evidence was requried, was also
B   advanced. This argument has been repeatedly rejected by this Court saying
    that the members of the family if present at the time of occurrence are the
    most natural witnesses. According to us, all these submissions are of no
    significance, in view of the fact that the first information report was lodged
    within an hour of the occurrence; a copy whereof was received by the
c   Magistrate within two hours of the recording thereof. The version disclosed
    in the F.I.R. has been supported by three eye witnesses PW 4, PW 5 and
    PW 6. We find no reason to doubt their testimony only on the ground that
    they were closely related to the victims. There is no suggestion much less
    evidence on behalf of the accused persons to show that any person after
D   the occurrence appeared at the scene to engineer the present case against
    them. It appears Surjit Kaur {PW 4) whose husband and elder brother of
    her husband had succumbed to the injuries, was left alone to pursue the
    post occurrence steps without help or assistance from anyone else.

         We find no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the Trial
E   Court and affirmed by the High Court. Therefore, the appeals fail and are
    accordingly dismissed.

    N.P.V.                                                    Appeals dismissed.