Hon'ble Supreme Cort of India held in the year 2010 that, "No reason could be given as to why such (son and father) close relations of the appellant (father as accused) would depose against him. 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 (accused). 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 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.
Mere absconding by the appellant (accused) after commission of the crime...by itself is not conclusive either of guilt or of guilty conscience.
Contention made by Shri Bagga (defence councel) that no conviction can be recorded in case of a solitary eye-witness has no force and is negatived accordingly."
No comments:
Post a Comment