VIJAYAWADA: IN an incident of attack, absence of motive may not be fatal to the case of the prosecution if it is proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of direct evidence. But if the genesis of the occurrence is not proved and no reason is given for motive in the alleged attack, it would weigh against the prosecution. It is settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available because even if there is 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 one of the cases before the Hyderabad High Court, a person suffered a knife attack at a village in Nalgonda district of Telangana and succumbed after two days.
His friend was charged with his murder under Section 302 of IPC (punishment for murder) in the district sessions court. He was also charged with committing an offence under Section 324 (causing hurt by a dangerous weapon) by causing hurt to another (prosecution witness one (PW1)) with a knife. The sessions court convicted him on both charges and sentenced to life imprisonment. Aggrieved, he filed an appeal before the High Court.
A division bench, comprising justices PV Sanjay Kumar and T Amarnath Goud, pointed out that though it was the case of the prosecution that the prosecution witness (PW1) was first injured by the accused and thereafter the attack upon the deceased occurred, none of the so-called eyewitnesses said anything about an attack on the prosecution witness or explained as to how the latter suffered injuries. None of them spoke of the accused first attacking PW1 with the knife and causing him injuries and then turning upon the deceased.
“Though merely because a witness turns hostile, it would not result in the prosecution case being thrown out, the court must see the relative effect of his testimony and if the evidence of the hostile witness is corroborated by other evidence, there would be no legal bar to convict the accused. In effect, the testimony of a hostile witness is acceptable only to the extent it is corroborated by that of a reliable witness,” the bench observed.
According to the prosecution, the ire of the accused was directed against PW1 with whom he had disputes and only because of the intervention of the deceased, the accused turned upon him. The bench said that all the eyewitnesses, and more particularly the family members of the deceased, spoke in one voice that the deceased and the accused were very good friends. If that be so, it is difficult to believe that the accused would have vented such rage upon the deceased, it said.