REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1247 of 2008
…Appellant
…Respondent
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 13th July, 2005, passed in Criminal Appeal No.
352 of 2001 by the High Court of Calcutta, by which the High
Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant and
upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court
in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2001 (State Vs. Bipin Kumar
Mondal) under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as the ‘IPC’).
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are
that one Sujit Mondal, PW-1, lodged an Ejahar with Raninagar
Police Station on 6.12.1999 stating that his father Bipin
Kumar Mondal, appellant herein, came to their house at about
midnight on 5.12.1999 and attacked his mother, Usha Rani
Mondal, with a knife and inflicted severe injuries on her
person. When he went to save his mother, he was also
attacked by his father. He received injuries on his head and
hands and he had to escape out of fear. His younger brother,
Ajit Mondal, was also severely injured with a knife by his
father. On hearing the hue and cry made by Sujit Mondal, PW-
1, his neighbours came and in the meantime his father ran
On the basis of the said Ejahar, the police investigated
the case and submitted the charge sheet against the appellant
under Section 302/307 IPC. Appellant pleaded not guilty and
In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11
witnesses to bring home the charge against the appellant. An
Ejahar was lodged by the son of the appellant and other
witnesses had been close neighbours and relatives residing in
the same village. The Trial Court considered the evidence of
prosecution witnesses and came to the conclusion that
petition of complaint had been written by Saidul Islam, PW-10,
on the instructions of Sujit Mondal, PW-1, and both of them
supported the prosecution case in Court. Saidul Islam, PW-
10, was a resident of another village and had gone to
in connection with the
treatment of his relation and there he was requested by Sujit
Mondal, PW-1, to write the said Ejahar (Exh.-1). Sujit Mondal,
PW-1, had deposed that he had gone to the same Public
Health Centre at Raninagar and was admitted for treatment
for one day. The other witnesses who were close neighbours
had supported the prosecution case and deposed that all of
them reached the place of occurrence after hearing the shouts
by Sujit Mondal and when they reached there, they were told
by Sujit Mondal, PW-1, that his father had killed his mother
and brother and inflicted injuries on his person. After
considering the entire evidence on record and taking it into
consideration along with the defence taken by the appellant,
which had been only to the extent that he was innocent, the
trial Court held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving
its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the injuries on the
person of Sujit Mondal, PW-1, were found not to be so serious
and he has failed to produce any certificate from Raninagar
Public Health Centre or any other proof that he was admitted
there. The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and
323 IPC. Thus, he was awarded the sentence of life
imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and 6 months’ RI under
Section 323 IPC, however, it was held that both the sentences
would run concurrently vide judgment and order dated
The appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.352 of 2001,
which has been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned
judgment and order dated 13th July, 2002. Hence, this appeal.
Shri Seeraj Bagga, learned Amicus Curiae, has submitted
that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated
in the crime. Sujit Mondal, PW-1, was not sure as to who had
committed the offence. There was no motive for committing the
crime and the weapon with which the offence had been
committed has never been recovered. The depositions made by
PWs 2 to 8, the so-called related persons or neighbours are
merely based on hearsay as none of them had seen the
There are material contradictions in their depositions.
Dilip Kumar, PW-4, had deposed that when he reached the
place of occurrence, Ajit Mondal died within a short time after
his arrival. However, none of the other witnesses have stated
that when they reached the place of occurrence after hearing
the hue and cry of Sujit Mondal, PW-1, Ajit Mondal was alive
and had died after some time. All the three persons had been
sleeping in the same room which was open. Therefore, it was
possible for any outsider to enter into the house and the
possibility that an outsider entered the house and committed
the offence could not be ruled out. The appellant was an anti-
social element and many persons had a grudge against him.
So, any other person could have committed the crime. The
evidence to the effect that at the time of commission of offence,
the lamp was burning and there was sufficient light, is also
Therefore, the appeal deserves to be
On the contrary, Shri Avijit Bhattacharjee,
counsel for the State, has opposed the appeal and vehemently
submitted that Sujit Mondal, PW-1, had no doubt or suspicion
in his mind that his father had committed the offence. The
depositions made by PWs 2 to 8, who are close relatives and
place
of
occurrence
immediately after commission of the offence, cannot be
doubted as each of them has deposed before the Trial Court
told them that the appellant, his
father has committed the crime. The recovery of knife used in
the commission of offence could not be made because the
appellant remained absconding for a long time. The conduct of
the appellant i.e. absconding for a long time itself establishes
All the witnesses had been put to cross-examination and
nothing has been obtained to seek the credence of the
evidence of any of them. The appellant just pleaded innocence
and nothing else. He did not even disclose as under what
circumstances he had absconded from his family home and
had been living somewhere else, where he had been at the
time of commission of offence and why did he not attend any
ritual i.e. funeral etc. of the victims if he was innocent. The
appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
We have considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
lodged
an
Ejahar
Raninagar Police Station on 6.12.1999 giving full details of the
commission of the offence and naming his father as the person
who committed the offence. The said Ejahar had been written
by Saidul Islam, PW-10. On scrutiny of evidence of PW-10, it
becomes evident that he is an independent witness residing in
another village and could not have any grudge to support the
case of the prosecution by deposing falsely. The conduct of
Sujit Mondal, PW-1, remains very natural, probable and
During cross-examination, nothing could be
elicited from him seeking the credence of his statement. No
reason came forward in the cross-examination or otherwise as
to why a son would depose against his father. There is no
suggestion by Sujit Mondal, PW-1, that he was not sure as to
who has committed the offence, as in cross-examination he
denied such a suggestion stating that it was not a fact that he
told the name of the assailant as his father by suspicion. The
other witnesses who were close relatives and neighbours of the
appellant have supported the prosecution case.
Nath, PW-2, had deposed that he reached at about mid-night
when Sujit Mondal, PW-1, shouted and he came out from his
house and on enquiry from PW-1, he learnt that his mother
and brother had been murdered by the appellant with a sharp
cutting knife. PW-1 was also injured on his head and hands.
Swapan Kumar, PW-3, deposed that on reaching the place of
occurrence, he interrogated Sujit Mondal, who told him that
his father had killed his mother, Usha Rani and brother, Ajit
Mondal and there had been an attempt by his father to kill
him (Sujit Mondal) also with a sharp cutting knife.
Kumar, PW-4, Binay Mondal, PW-6, Anukul Chandra, PW-7
Kumar, PW-8, also deposed to
the
effect. All these witnesses had been cross-examined but there
is nothing on record to show that any part of their depositions
could be doubted. We do not find any force in the submissions
there
were
contradictions in their depositions as learned counsel for the
appellant had pointed out that Dilip Kumar, PW-4, had
deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence, Ajit
Mondal was alive and he interrogated him as to who had
caused the injury and he told him that his father assaulted
him and left. He further deposed that Sujit Mondal told him
that Ajit Mondal and Usha Rani were also attacked by the
appellant and Ajit Mondal died within a short time and Usha
The submissions made by Shri Seeraj Bagga is that none
of the other witnesses had deposed that when any of them
reached the place of occurrence, Ajit Mondal was alive. In fact,
there is nothing on record to show as who was the person who
reached first at the place of occurrence. It cannot be presumed
that all of them reached the place of occurrence at the same
time/simultaneously. No other question had been put to Dilip
Kumar, PW-4, in his cross-examination. Therefore, it is quite
possible that he was the first man to arrive at the place of
occurrence and the statement made by him cannot be denied.
Bipin Mukherjee, PW-9, had been the Investigating
Officer at a later stage when the first Investigating Officer had
been transferred and he had deposed that he had submitted
the charge sheet against the accused under Sections 302/324
IPC on 13.4.2000 showing the appellant as absconder.
appellant was given opportunity to cross-examine the said
I.O.; 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 knife, the weapon used in the crime.
Saidul Islam, PW-10, an independent witness belonging
to another village has successfully proved the Ejahar written
by him at Raninagar Public Health Centre.
evidence given by Sujit Mondal, PW-1, is duly supported by
The ocular
the post mortem report and by Dr. Tarun Kumar, PW-5,
examined by the prosecution, who had explained that several
stab injuries had been caused in the chest, neck and heart of
Usha Rani Mondal. He proved the post mortem report and
opined that the cardio respiratory failure due to shock and
haemorrhage due to injuries, had been the cause of death. He
also opined that injuries were caused by sharp cutting
weapon. Same remains the situation so far as the injuries on
For every question put to the appellant under Section
313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the same reply was
given that he was innocent and he submitted that he would
In view of the above, we reach the inescapable conclusion
that there is nothing on record to show that there could be any
reason for Sujit Mondal, 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 neighbours of
the appellant, would support the prosecution case.
During the cross-examination of all of the witnesses,
nothing had transpired for which their evidence may be
discarded. The witnesses were natural and most probable and
their presence at the place of occurrence immediately after the
commission of crime is expected, being close relatives and
neighbours. No reason could be given as to why such close
depose
against
Undoubtedly, there is nothing on record to show as what
could be the motive behind the murder of his wife and son by
the appellant. However, it can be difficult to understand the
motive behind the offence. The issue of motive becomes totally
irrelevant when there is direct evidence of a trustworthy
witness regarding the commission of the crime. In such a
case, particularly when a son and other closely related persons
depose against the appellant, the proof of motive by direct
evidence loses its relevance. In the instant case, the ocular
evidence is supported by the medical evidence. There is
nothing on record to show that the appellant had received any
grave or sudden provocation from the victims or that the
appellant had lost his power of self control from any action of
In fact, motive is a thing which is primarily known to the
accused himself and it may not be possible for the prosecution
to explain what actually prompted or excited him to commit a
In Shivji Genu Mohite Vs. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 55, this Court 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 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
would
strengthen
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
It is settled legal proposition that even if the absence of
motive as alleged is accepted that is of no consequence and
pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the
crime. Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence
of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part
loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the motive of
the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the
witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only by
the reason of the absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence
is worthy of reliance. (Vide Hari Shankar Vs. State of U.P.,
(1996) 9 SCC 40; Bikau Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar,
(2003) 12 SCC 616; and Abu Thakir & Ors. Vs. State of
In a case relating to circumstantial evidence, motive does
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. (Vide Ujagar Singh Vs. State of Punjab,
While dealing with a similar issue, this Court in State of
U.P. Vs. Kishanpal & Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 73 held as under:
“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 conviction.”
In Matru @ Girish Chandra Vs. The State of U.P., AIR
1971 SC 1050, this Court repelled the submissions made by
the State that as after commission of the offence the accused
had been absconding, therefore, the inference can be drawn
that he was a guilty person observing as under:
“The appellant’s conduct in absconding was also
relied upon. Now, mere absconding by itself does
not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of guilty
mind. Even an innocent man may feel panicky and
try to evade arrest when wrongly suspected of a
grave crime such is the instinct of self-preservation.
The act of absconding is no doubt relevant piece of
evidence to be considered along with other evidence
but its value would always depend on the
circumstances of each case. Normally the courts are
disinclined to attach much importance to the act of
absconding, treating it as a very small item in the
evidence for sustaining conviction. It can scarcely
be held as a determining link in completing the
chain of circumstantial evidence which must admit
of no other reasonable hypothesis than that of the
guilt of the accused. In the present case the
appellant was with Ram Chandra till the FIR was
lodged. If thereafter he felt that he was being
wrongly suspected and he tried to keep out of the
way we do not think this circumstance can be
considered to be necessarily evidence of a guilty
mind attempting to evade justice. It is not
inconsistent with his innocence.”
A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in
Rahman Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1972 SC 110; and State of
M.P. Vs. Paltan Mallah & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 733.
Abscondance by a person against whom FIR has been
lodged, having an apprehension of being apprehended by the
Thus, in view of the above, we do not find any force in the
submission made by Shri Bhattacharjee that mere absconding
by the appellant after commission of the crime and remaining
untraceable for such a long time itself can establish his guilt.
Absconding by itself is not conclusive either of guilt or of guilty
The defence did not even make a suggestion to Sujit
Mondal, 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 produce any evidence to
the effect that Sujit Mondal, PW-1, remained admitted in PHC
Raninagar. That part of the evidence has been ignored by the
Shri Bagga has also submitted that there was sole
testimony of Sujit Mondal, PW-1, and the rest, i.e. depositions
of PW-2 to PW-8, could be treated merely as a hearsay. The
same cannot be relied upon for conviction.
In Sunil Kumar Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
(2003) 11 SCC 367, this Court repelled a similar submission
observing that as a general rule the Court can and may act on
the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable.
There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the
sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section
134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about
the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. In fact, it
is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is
material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to
be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence
has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or
In Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC
150, this Court re-iterated the similar view observing that it is
the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is
necessary for proving or disproving a fact. The legal system
has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence
rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses.
It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and
completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction.
Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of
several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of
In Kunju @ Balachandran Vs. State of Taml Nadu, AIR
2008 SC 1381, a similar view has been re-iterated placing
reliance on various earlier judgments of this court including
Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1251; and
Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614.
Thus, in view of the above, the bald contention made by
Shri Bagga that no conviction can be recorded in case of a
solitary eye-witness has no force and is negatived accordingly.
In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion
that the facts and circumstances of the case do not present
review
judgments/orders of the courts below. Appeal lacks merit and
Before parting with the case, we record our appreciation,
thanks and gratitude to Shri Seeraj Bagga in rendering full
assistance to the Court during the course of hearing.
…………………………………J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
…………………………………J.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
