BIPIN KUMAR MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

A part of their depositions could be doubted. There was nothing on record to show that there could be any reason for PW-1, a son, to falsely implicate and rope his father into such a gruesome murder or the other witnesses, who had been so close relatives and B neighbours of the appellant, would support the prosecution case. The defence did not even make a suggestion to PW-1, that he was not injured by the appellant with a knife. The evidence of PW-1, therefore, cannot be ignored. However, as the prosecution failed to c produce any evidence to the effect that PW-1 remained admitted in public health centre, that part of the evidence was ignored by the trial court as well as by the High Court. The witnesses were natural and most probable and their presence at the place of occurrence immediately after the commission of crime was expected, being close relatives and neighbours. No reason could be given as to why such close relations of the appellant would depose against him. [Paras 11, 16, 17] [1045-A-F; 1047-B-G] 0

1.3. The ocular evidence given by PW-1, was duly E supported by the post mortem report and by the doctor PW-5 who had explained that several stab injuries were caused in the chest, neck and heart of the deceased wife of appellant. He proved the post mortem report and opined that the cardio-respiratory failure due to shock F and haemorrhage due to injuries, had been the cause of death. He also opined that the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. Same was the situation as regards the injuries on the body of the son of the appellant. [Para 14] [1046-E-G] G

1.4. PW-9 was the Investigating Officer at a later stage when the first Investigating Officer was transferred and he deposed to the effect that he submitted the charge sheet against the accused under Sections 302/324 IPC on H 13.4.2000 showing the appellant as absconder. The BIPIN KUMAR MONO.AL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 1039 appellant was given opportunity to cross"examine the A said 1.0.; but the opportunity was not availed. In fact, he was the best person to explain as to why there could not be any recovery of the weapon used in the crime. [Para · 13] (1046-C-D] B

#2. Undoubtedly, there was nothing on record to show as what could be ttie motive behind the murder of the wife and son by the appellant. However, the issue -of· motive becomes totally irrelevant when there is direct evidence of a trustworthy witness regarding the C commission of the crime. In such a case, particularly when a son and other closely related persons deposed against the appellant, the proof of motive by direct evidence would lose its relevance. In the instant case, the ocular evidence was supported by the medical evidence. In a case relating to circumstantial evidence, motive does D assume great importance, but to say that the absence of motive would dislodge the entire prosecution story is giving this one factor an importance which is not due. Motive is in the mind of the accused and can seldom be fathomed with any degree of accuracy. [Paras 17, 20] E (1047-C-F; 1048-G]

#3. Abscondance by a person against whom FIR has lodged, having an apprehension of being apprehended by the police, cannot be said to be F unnatural. Thus, mere absconding by the appellant after commission of the crime and remaining untraceable for such a long time itself cannot establish his guilt. [Para 22] (1050-C-E] Shivji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC G 55; Hari· Shankar v. State of UP. (1996) 9 SCC 40; Bikau. Pandey & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2003) 12 SCC 616; Abu Thakir & Ors. v. State otTamil Nadu (2010) 5 SCC 91; Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 13 SCC 90; State of UP. v. Kishanpal & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 73; Matru@ Girish Chandra H 1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 8 S.C.R.