Respondent-

Issue 1 –

Whether it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the convict had a motive to murder
the deceased?

It is humbly submitted that the hon’ble sessions court correctly held the appellant Ashok
Mane as guilty of murder of Prakash Mane under section 302 of IPC.

Sec 302 prescribes the punishment for committing murder. In order to bring a successful
conviction under this charge, however, it is pertinent to refer to Sec 299 of IPC which states
“whoever cause death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that
he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

Sec 300 of IPC states “except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder,
if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or

Secondly —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender
knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or

Thirdly —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily
injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or

Fourthly—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it
must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid”.

There can be no gainsaying the fact that whenever any crime is committed, the court always
takes into account the motive of the offender committing the crime, the preparation made in
committing the crime and last but not the least, the previous or subsequent conduct of the
offender as explained in Section 8 of the Evidence Act. First of all, let us deal with motive.
No act can be done by anyone without a motive.

It is humbly submitted that according to the given facts there were constant family conflicts
and civil property dispute among Ashok and Prakash. On 8 th March 2022 at 7:30 p.m. Ashok
Mane accused Prakash Mane for destroying his crops, he started abusing Prakash Mane and
walked towards assaulting him. While leaving the house Ashok threatened Prakash of taking
the revenge soon. These facts clearly establish the motive of Ashok Mane to kill Prakash.
Ashok Mane the appellant had smacked with an axe on the head of Prakash Mane which led
to the death of the Prakash Mane.

Family of Ashok Mane and Prakash Mane use to live together but separated in the year 2010
due to constant conflicts and property dispute.

PW1 in his examination in chief has stated in para no. 1 that there where constant disputes
between Ashok Mane and Prakash Mane and due to this Ashok Mane started living
separately. In his cross examination in para no. 3 has stated that “Ashok that evening not only
assaulted my father during the tussle but also specifically threatened to kill him”.

Also, PW1 in his cross-examination para 6 has said that he named Ashok as accused for the
killing as Ashok has already warned of taking revenge for destroying crops.

PW2 in his examination in chief in para no. 2 and in his cross-examination para 4 has clearly
mentioned that Ashok tried to assault Prakash and threatened him for facing dire
consequences.

PW 3 in her examination in chief para 2 has mentioned that she heard Ashok shouting.

PW4 in her examination in chief in para no. 2 has also mentioned the same. In para no. 3 she
mentioned that Ashok accused Prakash for destroying the crops. In para. 4 she also mentions
that there was a tussle between Ashok and Prakash and Ashok warned Prakash of dire
consequences to the extent of killing him.

PW5 in his examination in chief has stated in para no. 2 that he knew that the 2 brothers do
not share cordial relationship.

PW6 in her examination in chief has stated in para no. 2 that there were constant disputes
regarding the property between Ashok and Prakash and their dispute were frequently the
subject of talk among the villagers.

DW1 in her examination in chief has mentioned in para no. 1 that they (Ashok and Kamla his
wife) suspected Prakash for destroying all their crops. In her cross examination she has also
stated that they (Ashok and Kamla Mane) started living separately from the family of
deceased as they have constant family conflicts.

Sec 8 of Indian evidence Act states “any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive
or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any agent
to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference
to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence
against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is
influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent
thereto.

It is humbly submitted that from the above facts the motive of Ashok to kill Prakash is
established beyond reasonable doubts.

State of U.P. v. Kishanpal1, this Court examined the importance of motive in cases of
circumstantial evidence and observed:

‘... the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not
possible for the prosecution to explain what actually promoted or excited them to commit the
particular crime.’

The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence
but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the
accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also
settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of
eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused
persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of
eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive
but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of
motive cannot stand in the way of conviction2

Surinder Singh v. State, 3 has held that whilst motive is infallibly a crucial factor for proving
an offence under Section 307 IPC, and is a substantial aid for evincing the commission of an
offence but the absence thereof is, however, not such a quintessential component which can
be construed as fatal to the case of the prosecution, especially when all other factors point
towards the guilt of the accused and testaments of eye witnesses to the occurrence of a
malfeasance are on record.

In Sucha Singh and another v. State of Punjab, it has been stated that the prosecution is not
required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. A reasonable doubt is

1
(2008) 16 SCC 73
2
Nandu Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
3
2021 SCC Online SC 1135
not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and
common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case.

In case of Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar the hon’ble Supreme Court had held that if
motive is proved that would supply as a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.

The hon’ble Supreme court in case of Sarup Singh v. State of Punjab held that even in
absence of establishing motive, the offence under sec.302 of IPC was held to be proved.

We are not concerned with the sufficiency or otherwise of the motive which would have
prompted the appellant to commit the crime. The correctness of conviction cannot be tested
on the touchstone of lack of sufficient motive, if the evidence establishes beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused committed the crime. Such evidence is available in abundant measure
in the instant case4.

Issue 2-
4
Om Prakash vs. State of Uttaranchal
Whether it has been proved that the chain of circumstances appearing against the convict is
complete to draw inference of guilt?

That the Chain of Circumstantial Evidence is Fully Established

It is a well settled principle that where the case is mainly based on circumstantial

evidence, the court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of

evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to

rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. 5

In the case Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra 6, the hon’ble Supreme Court
held that,

when attempting to convict on circumstantial evidence alone the Court must be firmly

satisfied of the following five things:

a) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be

fully established. The circumstances must be or should and not may be established;

b) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt

of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explained on any other hypothesis

except that the accused is guilty;

c) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

d) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved;

e) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable

ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must

show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

These five golden principles constitute the “Panch Sheel” of the proof of a case based

on circumstantial evidence.

5
Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1974 SC 1144
6
AIR 1984 SC 1622
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, defines circumstantial evidence-

PW2 in his examination in chief para 3 has mentioned that he saw Prakash taking a walk near
his house, on the way back from his walk he also saw Ashok at a 5 minute distance from
Prakash`s house. PW2 started his walk around 9:30 p.m. and was back home at 9:45 p.m., he
saw both Prakash and Ashok between 9:30 p.m. and 9:45 p.m. near Prakash`s house. (The
place of incidence)

Ashok was near Prakash`s house waiting for the perfect opportunity to take his revenge. The
minute he felt no one was around he entered the house to kill Prakash but PW3 saw him.
PW3 in her examination in chief para no. 4 has stated that she saw Ashok entering the house,
he looked very angry and he had an axe in his hand.

Section 7 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 mentions

“Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue-Facts which are the occasion,
cause, or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which
constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity
for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant”.

The last seen together theory derives its relevance from section 7 of Indian Evidence Act. In
the last seen theory also the person who was last present with the victim would have a
reasonable opportunity to commit the crime.
This presumption of fact is taken under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act under which
“court may presume existence of certain facts. —The Court may presume the existence of
any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of
natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of
the particular case”. In case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 the same
view was upheld by hon’ble Supreme Court.

In Ram Avtar v State, 1985 the hon’ble Supreme Court held that that where circumstantial
evidence consists of a chain of continuous circumstances linked up with one another, the
court has to take the cumulative effect of the entire evidence led by the prosecution before
acquitting or convicting an accused.

In Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 3 SCC 219 and Bipin Kumar Mondal
vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 12 SCC 91, the Supreme Court had held that,
“in case the prosecution is not able to discover an impelling motive, that could not reflect
upon the credibility of a witness proved to be a reliable eyewitness. Evidence as to motive
would, no doubt, go a long way in cases wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence. Such
evidence would form one of the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in such a case.
But that would not be so in cases where there are eyewitnesses of credibility, though even in
such cases if a motive is properly proved, such proof would strengthen the prosecution case
and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion. But that does not mean that if motive is not
established, the evidence of an eyewitness is rendered untrustworthy.”

In case of Jagroop Singh vs State of Punjab on 20 July, 2012

The present case is one where there is no trace of doubt that all circumstances complete the
chain and singularly lead to the guilt of the accused persons.

Circumstances are fully established

The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully

established. The circumstances must be or should and not may be established. It is

contended that there is a well-established chain of circumstantial evidence proved.

It is humbly submitted that according to the facts from the place of incidence a gamcha was
seized and an axe was recovered at the backside of deceased home.

PW2 in his examination in chief in para no.3 has stated that I saw Ashok at a distance of 5
minutes of Prakash’s house having worn a gamcha.

PW3 in her examination in chief in para no.4 and also in her cross-examination para no. 5
said that I saw Ashok entering grandfather’s house with an axe.

PW3 in her cross examination in para no. 6 has said that it is very dark outside but, in the
case of Abdul Waheed Khan@ Waheed and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 7 it was held that
undisputedly the incident took place in a dark night when visibility was poor but
identification was possible because the victims of the assailants were known to each other.
Therefore, there is nothing wrong in identifying the accused persons.

7
(2002 9 (6) SC 274)
In Anwar Hussain v. The State of U.P. and Anr. 8 it was observed that even if there is
insufficient light, a witness can identify a person, with whom he is fairly acquainted or is in
intimate terms, from his voice, gaits, features etc.

In the case of Bachittar Singh v. State of Punjab 9, the accused persons murdered their own
brothers and their families owing to a land dispute. There was no incident, apart from this, on
record to suggest anything about their past misconduct.

According to memorandum of post mortem examination held at K.K. Hospital, the deceased
had external as well as internal injuries. Injury to the frontal lobe and occipital, of the brain.
There was a fracture of the bone, injury was grievous.

By this we can see that the injury of deceased is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to
cause death.

It is also mentioned in the report that the injury was attributable to a blow by a hard and blunt
object.

It is true that according to FSL report the blood present on the axe is not of the deceased but,
in case of John Pandian v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu it was held
that ,

“This is apart from the fact that this weapon was sent to the forensic science laboratory (FSL)
and it has been found stained with human blood. Though the blood group could not be
ascertained, as the results were inconclusive, the accused had to give some explanation as to
how the human blood came on this weapon. He gave none. This discovery would very
positively further the prosecution case”.

PW8 in his examination in chief in para no. 4 has also stated that, Prakash Mane died on
account of injury to the frontal lobe and occipital lobe, of the brain. The aforesaid injuries
were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause Prakash’s death and the injury was
attributable to a blow by a hard and blunt object like Axe.

It is humbly submitted that it was Ashok Mane who has killed Prakash and the sessions court
has rightly convicted him. After the incident of 7:30 p.m. Ashok went back to his house and
to take his revenge planned to kill Prakash. As he already knew the schedule of his brother
that Prakash goes outside for a walk daily after dinner. Around 9:30 p.m. he waited outside

8
(AIR 1981 SC 2073)
9
AIR 2002 SC 3473
Prakash’s house for the opportunity to execute his plan. The moment Prakash went inside the
house Ashok entered and killed Prakash.

DW1 in her cross-examination para no.2 has stated that there was no tussle between Ashok
and Prakash, this is completely in contradiction of facts. In fact, it is clearly mentioned that
there was a tussle. DW1 is trying to protect her husband and is also lying about the fact that
Ashok was with her between 8:30 p.m.-11:00p.m.

In case of Rajesh Kumar v. Dharamvir, the court held that alibi must be proved with absolute
certainty completely excluding the presence of the accused at the time and place where the
incident took place. Defence witness claiming to be the advocate of the accused in a pending
case and stating that at the relevant time the accused was in his office and no
contemporaneous document produced in support of his statement or prove the plea of alibi. In
the circumstances of the case, the testimony of the defence witness does not substantiate the
plea of alibi raised by the accused.

A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not
established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this
standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of
probability amounts to 'proof' is an exercise particular to each case.

Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law
cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free
from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt
of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere
vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible
doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. it must grow out of the
evidence in the case. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be
expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units
constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the
evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. 10

10
Krishnan and Ors. vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police (28.07.2003 - SC)