Holding

The non‑conduct of a test identification parade is not fatal to the prosecution; the evidence can be weighed and the conviction stands.

Summary

Sureendra Narain (Munna Pandey) was convicted of murder under IPC s.302 for shooting Shree Prakash in a rickshaw. The prosecution relied on three eye‑witnesses who named the accused in the FIR, and the accused surrendered later and sought a test identification parade, which was ordered by the Sessions Court but never conducted. The Supreme Court held that the failure to hold the parade was not fatal to the prosecution because the witnesses already knew the accused and the evidence was sufficient to prove the murder; the lack of a parade is merely one factor to be weighed. The Court also rejected challenges to the credibility of the witnesses, the alleged inconsistency with medical evidence, the omission of other on‑scene persons, and the contention that motive must be proved. Consequently, the conviction and life sentence were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

The failure to hold a test identification parade, despite a Sessions Court order, is fatal to the prosecution.
The non‑examination of other persons present at the scene affects the reliability of the eye‑witness testimony.
Whether the testimony of PW‑3 contradicts the medical autopsy report.
Whether PW‑1's conduct after the incident undermines his credibility.
Whether motive must be proved when the fact of murder is established.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

murderidentification paradeeye witness testimonyevidence weighingIPC 302CrPC 161conviction upheldmotive

Judgment

SURENDRA NARAIN@MUNNA PANDEY A
'A v.
THE STATE OFU:P.

NOVEMBER 7, 1997

[M.M. PUNCHHJ AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] B

Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302-Murder-Testimony of eye
witnesses-FIR mentioning name of the accused-Surrender by accused-

- Demand for identification parade-Rejected by Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate-On appeal Sessions Court's directions for identification parade-
Jdentification not held-Conviction by Trial Court-Confirmed by High
C

Court-Held, failure to hold identification parade not fatal to the
prosecution-Evidence has to be weighed and not counted-Once fact of the
· murder is proved, no necessity to prove motive.
D
The appellant was prosecuted under section 302 IPC. The case of the
prosecution was that the deceased · P' was going in a rickshaw with his
servant PW 3 followed by PW I and PW 2. The appellant-accused arrived
at the spot and shot the deceased with a pistol and sped away. The witnesses
proceeded to the police station and lodged a complaint. The victim was taken
to th.e hospital where he was declared dead. The name of the accused was E
mentioned by PW I in the FIR. The accused was related to the deceased as
a son of his "sala" and PW I was also related to the deceased. The accused
was not traceable from 7.4.1977 till he surrendered before the Court on
13.5. 77 and moved an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
for his identification parade. The said application was dismissed. On challenge, F
the Sessions Court issued directions for holding identification parade. But
no identification parade was held. Meanwhile, the Trial Court after examining
the witnesses found that the accused was guilty of murder punishable under
sedion 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860. On appeal, the High Court confirmed
the conviction and sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for life. G
Hence the present appeal.
The contention of the appellant inter alia was that the failure of the
·police to put up the appellant for identification parade inspite of an order of
the Court of Sessions is.fatal to the prosecution inasmuch as the appellant
has challenged the claim of PWs I to 3 thatthey knew him already. H
97
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The failure to hold the test identification parade on demand
by the accused inspite of an order passed by the Sessions Court is not fatal
to the prosecution. It is only one of the relevant factors to be taken into
consideration along with the other evidence on record. If the claim of the
B ocular witnesses that they knew the accused already is found to be true, the
failure to hold a test identification parade is inconsequeniial. The application
of the accused for the test identification parade on his surrender after such
a long time does not appear to be bone fide. Besides the point does not seem
to have been argued before the trial court or the High Court. The evidence
C on record as accepted by the courts below is sufficient to prove the guilt of
the accused.1107-C; F-GI -
Re Sangi ah 49 Cr. L.J. 89 Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Administration, AIR
(1958) SC 350; State v. Dhanpat, AIR (1960) Pat. 582; Asharfi & Anr. v. The
State, (1961) I Crl. L.J. 340; Budhsen & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR (1970)
D SC 1321; Tek Chand v. State, AIR (1965) Punjab 146; Jadunath Singh v.
State of H.P., AIR (1971) SC 363; State ofU.P. v. Rajju, AIR (1971) SC 708;
Go/am Majibuddin v. State of West Bengal, (1972) Crl. L.J. 1342; Rameshwar
Singh v. State of J &K, AIR (1972) SC 102; Dhara111vir v. State of MP.,
[197414SCC150; Mahtab Singh v. The State of MP., (1975( 3 SCC 407;
Harbhajan Singh v. State of J&K, AIR (1975) SC 1814; Kanan v. State of
E Kera/a, AIR (1979) SC 1127; Narendra Singh v. State of H.P., 1198712 SCC
236 and Ro111esh Ku111ar v. State of Punjab (1993) Crl. L.J. 1800, referred
to.

Shri Ram v. The State of U.P., 119751 3 SCC 495, distinguished.

F 1.2. In the instant case PW I had mentioned the name of the accused
in the FIR. The other two eye witnesses PW 2 and PW 3 also knew the
accused previously. The crucial factor is that the accused was related to the
deceased as a son of his "sala" and PW 1 was also related to the deceased.
The accused had never denied the relationship. (107-D-E]
G
2. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is adequate to prove the
charge. The non-examination of another person who was on the scene of
occurrence does not make the evidence of PWs I to 3 unreliable. Evidence
has to be weighed and not counted.1107-G-HI

H 3. The statement of PW 3 in his deposition was that the deceased
SURENDRA NARAIN@MUNNA PANDEYv. STATEOFU.P. [SRINIVASAN J] 99
sustained injury in the back whereas the medical report showed that two A
gunshot wounds were in the left side chest upper part and inner tq nipple.
Another gunshot wound was found in the spine medical part in thoracic
region. The fact that PW 3 was travelling in the same rickshaw as his
master, the deceased, is established beyond doubt. The High Court has
pointed out that witnesses having seen the exit wound on the back of the
deceased bleeding, thought that he had been hit in the back. Therefore, the B
contention that evidence of PW 3 runs counter to the medical evidence
deserves to be rejected cannot be accepted. 1108-A-CI

4. The evidence shows that the victim died immediately after firing.
The witness thought fit to stay back at the police station to get his complaint C
registered. The contention that PW I should have first taken the victim to
the hospital instead of police station cannot be accepted. 1108-D-El

5. When the fact of murder has been proved, there is no necessity to
prove motive. There is ample evidence on record to show that there was
dispute between the appellant and the deceased which remained unsettled. D
The way in which the deceased was killed shows that the appellant had the
intention to commit the offence of murder and accordingly carried out the
same. Thus the contention that there was no motives for tU appellant to
commit the offence is without any merit. 1108-E-FI

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 915 E
of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.2.95 of the Allahabad High Court
in Crl. A. No. 2606 of I 979.
F
Arvind Kumar, (Ms. Manisha Bhardwaj) for Ms. Laxmi Arvind for the
Appellant.

Vishwajit Singh for A.S. Pundir for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G
SRINIVASAN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment of the High Court of Allahabad confirming the order of conviction
passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur on a charge under
Section 302 l.P.C. against the appellant and sentence for rigorous imprisonment
for life. H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A 2. The case of the prosecution was as follows :

On April 7, 1977 at about 3.30 p.m. the victim Shree Prakash was going
in a rickshaw with his servant Nanhu Singh (PW-3) followed by Balkrishan
Bajpai (PW-I) and Mohammed Haneef (PW-2) in another rickshaw in the
crossing of Alumandi, Cooperganj, Kanpur within the area of the police
B station Anwarganj. At that time the appellant arrived at the spot sitting on
the pillon of a motor cycle driven by another person, shot the victim with a
pistol and sped away. The witnesses proceeded to the police station which
was very near the place of occurrence and lodged a complaint around 3.45
P.M. The victim was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. While
C PW I stayed at the police station for giving a statement PW 2 went to inform
the sister of the victim. The nal11'1 of the appellant was mentioned by PW I
in the FIR who could not however give the name of the person who was
driving the motor-cycle though he claimed that he could identify him on
seeing his face. The appellant could not be traced till he surrendered in Court
on 13.5.1977.
D
3. On that date itself the appellant moved an application before the
C.M.M. Kanpur claiming that witnesses were not known to him and that a test
identification parade should be ordered. The C.M.M. dismissed it on the
ground that the offence being one exclusively triable by Court of Sessions,
he could not pass orders thereon. That order was challenged in the Court of
E Sessions, Kanpur. The latter allowed the prayer by order dated 14.6. 77 and
directed the appellant to be put up for identification. But the identification
parade was not held.

4. The trial went on and the prosecution examined as many as nine
witnesses, including three eye witnesses. The accused while putting forward
F a case of.total denial examined three witnesses. The trial judge accepted the
case of the prosecution and found the accused guilty of murder punishable
under Section 302 l.P.C. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the same.

5. In this appeal, learned counsel has urged five contentions - (I) The
G failure of the police to put up the appellant for identification parade inspite
of an order of the Court of Sessions is fatal to the prosecution inasmuch as
the appellant has challenged the claim of PWs I to 3 that they knew him
already. (2) The non-examination of the rickshaw pullers is a vital factor
omitted to be considered by Courts below; (3) The evidence of PW3 runs
counter to the medical evidence and deserves to be rejected; (4) The conduct
H of PW ·1 after the occurrence was unnatural and he should have been
SURENDRA NARAIN@MUNNA PANDEYv. STATEOFU.P. [SRINIVASANJ.] 101

disbelieved; (5) There was no motive for the appellant to commit the offence. A
6. We will presently consider them seriatim. The first contention is
pressed rather strongly by the learned counsel on the basis of an observation
-;
ma:E.hShri Ram V. The State of U.P., [1975] 3 sec 495. The Court said in
that case that the circumstance that the accused had voluntarily accepted the
risk of being identified in a parade but was denied that opportunity was an B
important point in his favour. In that case, the trial court was influenced by
the aforesaid circumstance and acquitted the accused. On appeal the High
Court rejected the same as inconsequential by observing that the oral testimony
of witnesses, even if not tested by holding an identification parade, can be
made the basis of conviction if the request made by the accused is groundless
and the witnesses knew the accused prior to the occurrence. This Court while
c
holding that no rule of law requires that the oral testimony of a witness
should be corroborated by evidence of identification and that such evidence
is itself a ·weak type of evidence observed thus :

"But the point of the matter is that the Court which acquitted Shri D
Ram was justifiably influenced by the consideration that though at the
earliest stage he had ask~d that the identification parade be held, the
demand was opposed by the prosecution and the parade was therefore
not held".

Moreover, in that case there was serious infirmity in the testimony of the eye E
witnesses who deposed against the accused and this Court found it to be
unrealistic and unacceptable.

7. The purpose and evidentiary value of identification parade have been
considered in a number of cases. In lnre Sangiah 49 Cr. L.J. 89 Rajamannar,
J discussed the matter at length and said thus : F

I am unable to find any provision in the Code which entitles an
accused to demand that an identification parade should be held at or
~
before the enquiry or the trial. An identification parade belongs to the
stage of investigation by the police. The question whether a witness
G
has or has not identified the accused during the investigation is not
one which is in itself relevant at the trial. The actual evidence regarding
identification is that which is given by the witnesses in the Court. The
fact that a particular witness has been able to identify the accused at
the identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative of the
identification in a Court. If a witness has not identified the accused H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A at the parade or otherwise during the investigation the fact may be
relied on by the accused, but I find nothing in the provisions of the
Code which confers a right on the accused to demand that the
investigation should be conducted in a particular way. As the learned
Judges pointed out in 1932 M.W.N. 427 "Identification parades are
held not for the purpose of giving defence advocates material to work
B on, but in order to satisfy investigating officers of the bona fide of
the prosecution witnesses". In AIR 1948 Lah 303 Blacker, J. held, thus:

"Whenever an accused person disputes the ability of the
prosecution witness to identify him, the Court should direct an
identification parade to be held save in the most exceptional
c circumstances".

With great respect to the learned Judge I am unable to find any
provision of law which compels the Court to so direct a parade. It is
not clear from the judgment whether the Court making an enquiry or
holding the trial should stay its proceedings and direct the parade to
D
be held before another Magistra!e: In my opinion it does not take into
account the important fact that an identification parade is a part of
the investigation and once the case has reached the stage of an
enquiry before the Magistrate the investigation is at an end and all
that takes place in Court form part of the record of the case.
E
Now it is quite clear that statements made at an identification
parade are not substantive evidence at the trial. It must be very
embarrassing to the Magistrate making an enquiry to listen to
statements made by the witnesses at an identification parade which
will not be evidence at the enquiry. Further, it is not incumbent on the
F prosecution to examine all the witnesses cited by them and all those
who took part in the identification parade . It will then mean that the
Magistrate has heard the statement of witnesses who will not be
examined at the enquiry. If on the other hand, it is suggested that a
different Magistrate should hold the identification parade it appears
to me that there is no provision whatever for such a course when a
G
particular Magistrate is seized of the case. The observations in AIR
1946 Lah 48 are really obiter because that case dealt with ·a regular
appeal against the conviction by a Court of Session. In that case the
Magistrate who made the enquiry refused an application by the accused
to arrange for an identification parade on the following grounds viz.,
H that the witnesses knew the accused before and that the application
SURENDRA NARAIN@ MUNN A PANDEYv. STATE OF U P. [SRINIVASAN J .] ] 03

was made only for the purpose of delay. The learned Judges held that A
the reasons given by the Magistrate were not sound. It is true that
they went on to observe that should any serious question of identity

--
,.. ' arise during the courses of the trial the ability of the witnesses to
identity the accused may be put to test before the trial. With great
respect I do not agree. If a case is posted for trial any test as to the
ability or creditability of the witnesses should be decided only in B
Court and not by means of an identification parade, the proceedings
at which will not form part of the record of the Court.

8. In Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Administration, AIR (1958) SC 350, this
Court held that failure to hold test identification parade does not make C
inadmissible the evidence of identification in Court and that the weight to be
attached to such identification is a matter for the Courts of fact and it is not
for the Supreme Court to reassess _the evidence unless exceptional grounds
are established necessitating such a course.

9. In State v. Dhanpal, AIR (1960) Patna 582 cited before us, it was held D
that if the witnesses do not give the name of any accused, it is necessary
to hold a test identification parade and where a witness gives the name of
the accused, ordinarily no such parade is necessary. The Court however said
that if any accused holds out a challenge and says that he will not be
identified by the witnesses or makes a prayer that he should be put upon a
test identification parade, such a parade must always be held in order to meet E
the challenge. The Court also said that if the accused was arrested on the
spot and was in custody from that time upto the date of trial, there could be
no question at all about his identity.

IO. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dealt with the entire F
subject of identification parade in Asharfi & Anr. v. The State, ( 1961) I Crl. ·
L.J. 340. It was held that the identification of an accused who is already
known to the identifier is futile.

11. In Budhsen & Anr. v. State of UP., AIR (1970) SC 1321 it was held
that identification parades belong to the investigation stage and generally G
held with the primary object of enabling the witnesses to identify persons
. concerned in the offence who were not previously known to them. The legal
effect of identification parades was stated as follows :

" .... that certain persons are brought to jail or some other place and make
statements either express or implied that certain individuals whom they point H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A out are persons whom they recognized as having been concerned in the
crime. They do not constitute substantive evidence."

12. In Tek Chand v. State, AIR (1965) Punjab 146, cited by learned
counsel, a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court held that the accused
B cannot compel the prosecution to hold' their identification during the
investigation and there is no law or procedure under which the Magistrate
could pass such an order. The Bench proceeded to hold that if such a prayer
is made by the accused and the prosecution opposes the same, it exposes
the witnesses of identification to a genuine criticism that they would probably
not be able to identify the offenders correctly if the parade was held. The
C Court held that when the request for identification parade was refused for no
valid reason and the court identification was made long afterwards, the
identification evidence in court could not be relied on, unless it was a
corroborated.

13. In Jadunath Singh v. State of H.P., AIR (1971) SC 363 a Bench of
D Three Judges of this Court held that failure to hold test identification of
accused is not fatal in all cases. The Bench referred to the case law on the
subject including the decision of the Madras High Court in Sangiah's case
and held as follows :

E "It seems to us that the reason given by the public prosecutor in the
report and the reason given by the Additional Directing Magistrate
(Judicial) in the order directing that identification requested for be not
held were not valid. The fact that the chargesheet had been received
and the accused had been named by P. Ws was no justification for not
!laving ordered the test identification. But on the facts of this case it
F is clear that PW2 at least knew the accused from before. As regards
PW3 although he claims to have known the accused, it is clear that
his knowledge of the accused was very scant and if it had not been
for the evidence of PW2 we would not have placed reliance on the
evidence of PW 3 in view of the fact that the police did not ask him
G to identify the appellant.

It is stated in Phipson on the Law of Evidence, 9th Ed. P. 4 l 3d as
follows:

"In criminal cases it is improper to identify the accused only when
H 'in the dock :
SURENDRA NARAIN@MUNNA PANDEYv. STATE OF UP [SRINIVASAN .I.] 105
The police should place him, before hand, with the orders, and ask the A
witness to pick him out. Nor should the witness be guided in any way,
nor asked "is that the man" ?"

We consider that the same is the law in India, if the identity is in
doubt.
B
Accordingly on the facts of this case we are of the opinion that
the trial was not vitiated because the accused persons were denied
identification.

The same Bench dealt with the State ofU.P. v. Rajju, AIR (1971) SC 708 and
held that in the absence of request from accused, State is not bound to hold C
identification parade wl,en they were arrested on the spot.

14. In Go/am Majibuddin v. State of West Bengal, (1972) Cr!. L.J. 1342,
another Bench of three Judges of this Court held that when the witness stated
that he already knew the accused before the day of occurrence and it was
not the case of the accused that he was not known to the witness previously, D
test identification would serve no purpose. The same Bench had to consider
a converse case in Rameshwar Singh v. State ofJ&K, AIR (1972) SC !02. The
Bench stated the law thus :

"Before dealing with the evidence relating to identification of the
appellant it may be remembered that the substantive evidence of a E
witness is his evidence in Court but when the accused person is not
previously known to the witness concerned then the identification of
the accused by the witness soon after the former's arrest is of vital
importance because it furnishes to investigating agency an assurance
that the investigation is proceeding on right line in addition to F
furnishing corroboration of the evidence to be given by the witness
later in Court at the trial. From this point of view it is a matter of great
importance both for the investigating agency and for the accused and
a fortiori for the· proper administration of justice that such identification
is held without avoidable and unreasonable delay after the arrest of G
the accused and that all the necessary precautions and safeguards are
effectively taken so that the investigation proceeds on correct line for
punishing the real culprit. It would, in addition, be fair to the witness
concerned who was a stranger to the accused because in that event
the chances of his memory fading are reduced and he is required to
identify the alleged culprit at the earliest possible opportunity after H
•
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A the occurrence. It is thus and thus alone that justice and fair play can
be assured both to the accused and to the prosecution. The
identification during police investigation, it may be re-called, is not
substantive evidence in law and it can only be used for corroborating
and contradicting evidence of the witness concerned as given in
Court. The identification proceeding, therefore, must be so conducted
B
that the evidence with regard to them when given at the trial, enable
the Court safely to form appropriate judicial opinion about its
evidentiary value for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting
the statement in the Court of the identifying witness."

C On the facts of the case, it was found that the name of the accused was not
mentioned in the FIR. This Court found the witnesses to be untruthful. This
Court found that the High Court had erroneously relied upon statements
recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. for the purpose of corroboration of certain
statements made in Court. On that basis, the judgment of the High Court was
D set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

15. In Dharmvir v. State of M. P., (1974] 4 SCC 150, it was held that no
identification parade was called for as the victim mentioned the names of the
accused in the Fl R.

E 16. In Mahtab Singh v. The State of M.P., [ 1975] 3 SCC 407 the Bench
held that the need for identification parade arises only if the assailants are
not previously known to the witnesses. It is to be noticed that it is the very
same Bench which dealt with "Shri Ram's case (supra) relied on by the
appellant and referred to by us in the beginning.

F 17. In Harbhajan Singh v. State ofJ. & K., AIR (l 975) SC 1814 a Bench
of three Judges followed Jadunnath Singh's case (supra) and held that failure
of investigating officer to hold identification parade is not necessarily fatal.
...
18. In Kanan v. State ofKerala, AIR(l979) SC 1127, the Court held that
G where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in the Court
for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been
a previous test identification parade to test his powers of observation.

19. In Narendra Singh v. State of H.P., [ 1987] 2 SCC 236, the attack on
deceased was witnessed by an uninterested and independent witness who
H knew the accused already. That witness snatched from the accused the kirpan
•
SURENDRA NARAIN@MUNNA PANDEY1·. STATE OF UP [SRINIVASAN J.] JQ7

and the turban when he escaped and deposited the same in the police station. A
The FIR was lodged within 15 minutes and the accused was named therein.
The Court held that the question of identification was of qo consequence.

20. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1993) Crl. L.J. 1800, a Bench
of two Judges held that holding of identification parade was not necessary
as the murder took place in a rickshaw and the rickshaw puller stated that he B
knew the accused and that conviction based primarily on his testimony was
proper.

21. On a perusal of the above ruling it is clear that the failure to hold
the test identification parade even after a demand by the accused is not
always fatal and it is only one of the relevant factors to be taken into C
consideration alongwith the other evidence on retord. If the claim of the
ocular witnesses that they knew the accused already is found to be true, the
failure to hold a test identification parade is inconsequential.

. 22. Turning to the facts of this case, it is seen that PW I had mentioned D
the name of the accused in the FIR which was given within 15 minutes of the
occurrence. The other two eye witnesses, PW 2 and PW 3 also knew the
accused previously. The crucial factor is that the accused was related to the
deceased as a son of his "Sala" and PW I was also related to the deceased.
The accused had never denied the relationship. As the trial Judge has
observed, "there is not a scintilla of evidence" that PW I had a grudge E
against the accused. There is also no evidence that the wife of the deceased
had any enmity with the accused. She would not have allowed a false case
to be foisted on her brother's son. The accused was not traceable from 7.4. 77
to 13.5.77. On the facts of the case, his application for the test identification
parade on his surrender after such a Jong time does not appear to be bona F
fide. In any event, the evidence on record as accepted by the Courts below
is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Further the point does not seem
to have been argued before the trial court or the High Court. On the facts of
this case there ·is no doubt that the failure to hold a test identification parade
in spite of an order passed by the Sessions Court is not fatal to the
prosecution. G
23. The second contention is without any merit. The evidence adduced
by the prosecution is adequate to prove the charge. The non-examination of
another person who was on the scene of occurrence does not make the
evidence of PWs I to 3 unreliable. It is needless to point out that evidence
has to be weighed and not counted. H
108. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A 24. The third contention is based on the statement of PW 3 in his
deposition that Shri Prakash sustained injury in the back whereas the medical
report showed that two gunshot wounds were in the left side chest upper part
and inner to nipple. Another gunshot wound was found in the spine medical
part in thoracic region. The fact that PW3 was travelling in the same rickshaw
B as his master, the deceased is established beyond doubt. His clothes which
got stained by the blood which oozed out of the wounds of the deceased
were taken by the investigating officer. The High Court has discussed this
aspect of the matter at some length and we agree with the reasoning of the
High Court. As pointed out by the High Court the witness having seen the
exit wound on the back of the deceased bleeding, thought that he had been
C hit in the back. Hence we reject this contention. ~·

25. The fourth contention is equally without any substance. The
argument is that PW I would have in the first instance taken the victim to
the hospital instead of police station and in any event would have accompanied
PW 3 to the hospital. According to the learned counsel the fact that PW I
D stayed in the police station to give a statement after sending PW 3 and the
victim to the hospital throws considerable suspicion on his credibility. We are
unable to accept this contention. The evidence shows that the victim died
immediately after the firing. The witness thought fit to stay back at the police
station to get his complaint registered. Here again, the reasoning of the High
E Court is unassailable and we agree with the same.
26. The fifth and the last contention that there was no moti\'"e for the
appellant to commit the offence is also without any merit. There is ample
eviderice on record to show that there was a dispute between the appellant
and the deceased which remained unsettled. The way in which the deceased
F was killed shows that the appellant had the intention to commit the offence
of murder and accordingly carried out the same. But it is well settled that
when the fact of murder has been proved, there is no necessity to prove
motive.

27. In sum, the appeal has to suffer a dismissal and is accordingly
G dismissed.
S.V.K.l. Appe.al dismissed.