Motive Need Not Be Proved When Prosecution Case Is Proved By Credible Eye-Witness: Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Conviction For Double Murder

The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction in a double murder case wherein the convict was sentenced to life for shooting his mother-in-law and brother-in-law dead in 2012.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "the non proof of motive by the prosecution looses its vigour, thus on the ground, that the motive may be required to be proven in a prosecution cases rested upon circumstantial evidence, but may not acquire any efficacious proof qua thereto becoming adduced by the prosecution, especially besides obviously when credible eye witness account became rendered by the eye witnesses to the instant crime event."

The Court opined that since the present case is based on the credible eye-witness account of daughter and sister of the deceased therefore not proving of motive by the prosecution is "inconsequential."

Bhupinder Singh had filed the appeal challenging the conviction order passed by the trial court whereby he was convicted for committing murder of his mother-in-law and brother-in-law. Singh was convicted under Sections 302 IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1954.

Senior counsel for the appellant argued that the eye-witness admitted in cross that there was only one gun shot on Surinder Kaur but post mortem report mentions 3 gun shots, and the eye-witness is not an independent witness and is only introduced by prosecution to strengthen the case.

There is no motive of the murder and bullets recovered from the body of Lovepreet Singh were not send to the FSL concerned, he added.

After examining the submissions, the Court rejected the appellant's submission that the prosecution case is doubtful because bullet extracted from the dead body of deceased Lovepreet Singh were not sent examinations thereof along with the firearm wherefrom it became fired.

The Court said the argument is  inconsequential because "the vivid credible ocular account rendered vis-a-vis the crime event, especially when the firearm has been irrefutably declared to be the one wherefrom the bullets became fired."

The bench noted that the eye-witness account of accused person's wife corroborated with the disclosure statement and recovery memo along with the bullets recovered.

Furthermore, the Court opined that the amount of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 7,000 upon the accused-appellant qua commission of offences respectively under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, is extremely minimal, and, is required to be enhanced.

Therefore, it enhanced the compensation to Rs.50,000 each and dismissed the appeal filed by the accused stating that the same is bereft of any merit. 

Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate

for the appellant (in CRA-D-1311-DB-2013) and for respondent No. 2 (in CRA-D-1365-DB-2013).

Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate with Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate for the complainant.

Title: Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 361

Click here to read/download the order