* Author
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 94 : 2024 INSC 271
Chandan
v.
The State (Delhi Admn.)
(Criminal Appeal No.788 of 2012)
05 April 2024
[Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to effect of lack or absence of motive, when there
is testimony of a reliable eye-witness.
Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Murder – Prosecution case that
accused stabbed the victim multiple times with the knife he
was carrying, resulting in the death of the victim – Victim’s
sister-in-law witnessed the incident from a short distance
– Conviction and sentence u/s. 302 by the courts below –
Interference with:
Held: Not called for – Blood of the deceased clearly matched with
the blood found on the knife recovered from the accused, together
with the ocular evidence of a reliable eye-witness of the incident
– Murder, the arrest of the accused and the recovery of the knife
from him happened in quick succession, with a very little time gap –
Entire evidence put together by the prosecution establishes the guilt
of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt – Submission that the
prosecution not been able to establish any motive on the accused
for committing this dastardly act is true, but since in the instant
case there is nothing to discredit the eye-witness, the motive itself
is of little relevance – Lack or absence of motive is inconsequential
when direct evidence establishes the crime. [Paras 4-6]
Case Law Cited
Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra AIR (1973)
SC 55; Bikau Pandey v. State of Bihar [2003] Supp. 6
SCR 201 : (2003) 12 SCC 616; Rajagopal v. Muthupandi
[2017] 2 SCR 84 : (2017) 11 SCC 120; Yogesh Singh
v. Mahabeer Singh [2016] 7 SCR 713 : (2017) 11 SCC
195 – referred to.
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 95
Chandan v. The State (Delhi Admn.)
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Lack of or absence of motive; Testimony of a reliable eye-witness;
Murder; Ocular evidence; Recovery of knife.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.788
of 2012
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.07.2010 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLA No. 130 of 1997
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Richa Kapoor, Deepak Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
Mrs. Aishwariya Bhati, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Mrs. Shivika
Mehra, Mrs. Rajeshwari Shankar, Alankar Gupta, Akshaja Singh,
Advs. for the Respondent
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
1. The appellant before this Court was convicted under Section 302
of IPC. The conviction and sentence have been upheld by the High
Court in appeal. As per the prosecution it is a case of a daylight
murder with a reliable eye-witness.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.05.1993 at about 8:15 pm
while PW-2, who was sister-in-law of the deceased was returning
from Ram Bazar, the deceased and the accused were walking a
few steps ahead of her. After a few minutes she saw the two, i.e.
the deceased Rakesh and Chandan, grappling with each other and
then she saw the accused stabbing the deceased multiple times with
the knife he was carrying. The deceased fell on the ground and the
accused/appellant fled away. The deceased, Rakesh, was first taken
to the adjacent clinic which was a private clinic of Dr. Kalra in the
vicinity, where they were advised to take him to Hindu Rao hospital
which was the nearest hospital where an emergency treatment could
96 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
be given to the deceased. By the time the deceased reached the
hospital he was declared dead. Post-mortem was conducted on the
deceased the next day i.e. on 29.05.1993, and the following antemortem injuries were detected:
"1. An incised stab wound 22 cm x 2 cm x? places vertically
on the left claricular area. (cellar bone region).
2. An incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x? vertically present
just below an moidal to the left nipple.
3. An incised wound 3 cm. x 1.5 cm x? transversally
places on the middle on left arm over anterolateral
surface. The medial end was actually cut.
4. An incised wound 1.5 cm. x. 0.8 cm. x? transversally
placed on the back of let arm upper part. The posterior
end of the injury was actually cut.
Injury No. 3 and 4 were found to be communicating
with each other.
5. An incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 x? vertically placed
on the left lateral chest wall on the seventhribs, lower
and was acute.
6. An incised wound 20. cm. x · 1.5 cm. x? sprindle
shape on the top of let shoulder
7. An incised wound 2 cm. x 0.5 cm. x muscle deep on
the left scapular area.
8. An incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x? placed vertically
on the left renal angle.”
It was further observed:
“Injury no. 1 on the chest was only muscle deep. So was
injury No. 2 Injury No. 5 had entered left chest cavity
through 7th intercostals space and was directed upwards
and medially where it involved pericardium and tip of the
left ventricle of the hear…
Injury no. 5 was sufficient the ordinarly course of nature to
cause death. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage
consequent to injuries…
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 97
Chandan v. The State (Delhi Admn.)
In my opinion, injuries found on the body of deceased
Rakesh were possible with this weapon. I had also made
sketch of the said weapon along with P.M. report which is
Ex.PW9/A which is signed me and is correct.
The weapon knife Ex.Pl is taken out. The weapon Ex. Pl
shown to me in the court is the name with was produced
before me police in sealed parcel at the time P.M. and the
injury could be caused with Ex.Pl.”
An FIR was registered on the date of incident itself i.e., 28.05.1993,
at Police Station, Kashmere Gate, Delhi on the statement of PW-2,
the complainant, where she narrated the incident as already stated
above. The police after investigation filed the chargesheet against
the sole accused, Chandan, under Section 302 IPC. After committal
of the case to the Sessions, 18 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution. The star witness of the prosecution was PW-2, who was
the eye-witness. She was put to a lengthy cross-examination by the
defence but nothing has come out which may discredit this witness.
This witness in her testimony narrates the entire sequence of events
as to how the accused stabbed the deceased to death and how she
watched from a short distance the act being committed before her,
and how all this happened in quick time.
3. The accused, it must be stated here, was caught the same day
in the vicinity itself along with the knife, which was the weapon,
used in the commission of the crime. The forensic report and other
evidences show that this was the knife which was recovered from
the possession of the sole accused and was used in the commission
of the crime. The blood of the deceased was found to be matching
with the blood found on the knife, which was recovered from the
accused/appellant. Brahm Pal Singh (PW-12) Head Constable is a
witness to this recovery. He states that upon receiving information
of stabbing, he along with constable Mahabir found the accused at
Hamilton Road. They saw the accused coming out from the side of
‘ganda Nala’, carrying a blood stained knife and wearing a blood
stained shirt. The accused was then apprehended by constable
Brahm Pal and the knife and shirt were accordingly recovered.
4. There were certain doubts raised on the manner of recovery of the
knife from the accused, but nothing moves on this aspect alone, more
particularly, in view of the fact that the blood of the deceased clearly
98 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
matches with the blood which was found on the knife, together with
the ocular evidence in the form of an eyewitness (PW-2), who is a
reliable eye-witness of the incident. We can also not lose sight of
the fact that the murder, the arrest of the accused and the recovery
of the knife from him happened in quick succession, with a very little
time gap. The entire evidence put together by the prosecution does
establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Both
the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have rightly held that
the prosecution has proved their case as such.
5. The argument of the defence that the prosecution has not been able
to establish any motive on the accused for committing this dastardly
act is in fact true, but since this is a case of eye-witness where there
is nothing to discredit the eye-witness, the motive itself is of little
relevance. It would be necessary to mention some of the leading
cases on this aspect which are as under:
In Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 55,
it was held that it is a well-settled principle in criminal jurisprudence
that when ocular testimony inspires the confidence of the court,
the prosecution is not required to establish motive. Mere absence
of motive would not impinge on the testimony of a reliable eyewitness. Motive is an important factor for consideration in a case of
circumstantial evidence. But when there is direct eye witness, motive
is not significant. This is what was held:
“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 eye-witness. 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 eye-witnesses 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 eye-witness
is rendered untrustworthy”
The principle that the lack or absence of motive is inconsequential
when direct evidence establishes the crime has been reiterated by
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 99
Chandan v. The State (Delhi Admn.)
this Court in Bikau Pandey v. State of Bihar, (2003) 12 SCC 616;
Rajagopal v. Muthupandi, (2017) 11 SCC 120; Yogesh Singh v.
Mahabeer Singh, (2017) 11 SCC 195.
6. In view of above, we see no reason to interfere with the orders of
the Trial Court and that of the High Court, accordingly the appeal
is dismissed. Interim order dated 09.05.2012 granting bail to the
appellant stands vacated. Appellant, who is presently on bail, is
directed to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of four
weeks from today. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Trial
Court to ensure that the appellant undergoes the remaining part of
his sentence.
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain Result of the case:
Appeal dismissed.
