JUDGMENT : J.K. Mohanty, J. - Appellant has been convicted u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for life for having committed murder of his wife Gayatri on 26-6-1976 at about 9 p.m. 2. The case of the prosecution may be briefly stated as follows: The parents of deceased Gayatri reside in the first floor of their double storied building which is situated in a lane named Sahara para in Bargarh town. A portion of the ground floor was let out to P.W. 11. Janakilal Sunari. The accused-Appellant is the husband of deceased Gayatri. The Appellant lives with his parents on Bhatli Road in Bargarh town. Some days prior to Narasingh Chaturdasi in the year 1976 the deceased came to the house of her parents. The Appellant asked the parents of the deceased to send the deceased to his house, but her parents declined to send her as it was an inauspicious month for daughters to be sent to their father-in-law's house. The Appellant thereupon got angry with his father-in-law and the deceased and assaulted them. Some days thereafter the Appellant came to the house of his father-in-law where the deceased was staying and apologised for the above incident and took the deceased to his house. Somedays thereafter on Narasingh Chaturdasi day in the absence of Appellant, the deceased was brought by her father his house with the consent of the father-in-law of the deceased. Two days thereafter thee Appellant came to the house of his father-in-law and demanded to take back the deceased. As the father of the deceased (P.W. 1) declined to send her, the Appellant got angry and took away the box of the deceased in which her personal belongings were kept. It is alleged that in the evening of the date of occurrence, the accused was found by P.W. 3 coming from the side at the house of P.W. 1. In that night at about 9 p. m the deceased came down from the first floor of the house to go to the latrine in the ground floor. At that time, her mother (P.W. 2) was preparing Roti. The stair-case leading to the first floor of P.W. 1's house starts from the outer verandah of the ground floor of the building. At that time, her mother (P.W. 2) was preparing Roti. The stair-case leading to the first floor of P.W. 1's house starts from the outer verandah of the ground floor of the building. Soon after the deceased came down to the ground floor through the stair-case, she raised a hulla that she was being assaulted by the accused-Appellant. Hearing her cry, P.W. 2 came running from the first floor where she was preparing Roti and found the accused stabbing the deceased with a knife. On hearing, her hulla, Baidehi (P.W. 3), Raghubir Sharma (P.W. 1), Radhamadhab (P.W. 9), P.W. 11 and many others came there and it is the prosecution case that P.W. 11 chased the Appellant, but could not catch him. The deceased succumbed to the injuries soon after she received the injuries. It is alleged that P.W. 2 narrated what she saw to the persons, who gathered there. At about 930 p.m. on 26-6-1976 P.W. 1, the father of the deceased, lodged F.I.R. (Ext. 1) implicating the accused in the crime. The Junior Sub-Inspector (P.W. 13) drew up the F.I.R. (Ext. I), registered a case u/s 302, Indian Penal Code against the Appellant and took up investigation. The Appellant, however, surrendered at Bargarh police station at about 1.30 a.m. in the said night. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellant u/s 302, Indian Penal Code. The plea of the accused is a denial of the occurrence. 3. In order to prove the case, prosecution has examined 14 witnesses. P.W. 2 is the mother of the deceased and is the only eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased. P.Ws. 3, 9 and 11 are the neighbours, P.W. 4 is the R.I., who prepared the spot map. P.W. 5 is the constable, who accompanied the deadbody to the morgue. P.Ws. 7 and 8 are the seizure witnesses. P.W. 6 is a Pharmacist, who collected blood clots found on the upper portion of the palm of the accused. P.W. 10 is a witness to the removal of the blood strains from the person of the accused by P.W. 6. P.Ws. 12 & 13, are the police officers, who took part in the investigation. P.W. 14 is the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination over the deadbody. The defence has not examined any witness. 4. P.W. 10 is a witness to the removal of the blood strains from the person of the accused by P.W. 6. P.Ws. 12 & 13, are the police officers, who took part in the investigation. P.W. 14 is the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination over the deadbody. The defence has not examined any witness. 4. The learned Sessions Judge relying on the evidence of the eye-witness (P.W. 2) and the corroborating evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3, 9 and 11 has convicted the Appellant. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, submitted that the evidence of P.W. 2 should not be believed in view of the inherent improbabilities in her evidence. Further lack of motive, suppression of material evidence and certain glaring circumstances threw a great deal of doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case. 5. In this case the only eye-witness is P.W. 2, the mother of the deceased. P.W. 2 has stated that the occurrence took place at about 9 p.m. Shortly before the occurrence, she, the deceased, her two other daughters and son were present in the first floor of her building. Her two daughters and son by then fell asleep. Her husband (P.W. 1) had gone out to take betel. While she was preparing Roti, her daughter Gayatri (deceased) told her that she was going to attend call of nature in the latrine in the ground floor and went down the stair-case. Soon after Gayatri cried sayjng "Ma Daudke As, Niranjan Marta hai". Hearing the cry of the deceased, she came down the stair-case and found the Appellant stabbing Gayatri with a knife. Seeing this, she raised alarm saying "Niranjan Mor Jhioke Maripakauchhe Dauda Dauda". When she raised alarm. Niranjan (Appellant) ran away leaving the deceased there. P.W. 11 tried to chase the accused, but could not catch him. Gayatri died soon after receiving the injuries. She narrated the entire incident to her husband and before others, who were present there. P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased. He has stated that accused Niranjan married his daughter Gayatri (deceased) about one and half years prior to the date of occurrence. The occurrence took place at about 8.30 to 9 p.m. on 26-6-1976. She narrated the entire incident to her husband and before others, who were present there. P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased. He has stated that accused Niranjan married his daughter Gayatri (deceased) about one and half years prior to the date of occurrence. The occurrence took place at about 8.30 to 9 p.m. on 26-6-1976. On that day hearing the bulla coming from the side of his house, he came running and found the deceased lying with cut injuries on her person in front of the house of P.W. 11. P.W. 11 was occupying a portion of his house in the ground floor. When he called the deceased uttering her name, the latter wanted to open her mouth and immediately after he gave her water, she died uttering "Ana Ana". Many people who gathered there at that moment said that Niranjan ran a way killing Gayatri. His wife (P.W. 2) also told him that Niranjan killed Gayatri and ran away. She (P.W. 2) told him that while she was preparing Roti on the fitst floor, she heard the voice of Gayatri "Niranjan Maripakayila". She further told him that P.W. 11 chased Niranjan, but could not catch him. P.W. 3 who is a front door neighbour of P.W. 2 deposed that a lane Intervenes her house and' the house of P.W. 1. Gayatri died at a bout Bhatkhia time. At that time she and her husband were taking food. While she and her husband were taking food, they heard alarm raised by P.W. 2 that Niranjan killed Gayatri. When she came out of her house to see Gayatri, she saw Gayatri lying dead and the electric bulbs were burning in front of the house of Gayatri as well as near the place of occurrence. She has further stated that when she came from the daily market' and her husband came from the field, she found accused Niranjan coming from the side of the house of P.W. 1. In cross-examination she has stated that she saw Niranjan coming from the side of the house of his father-in-law (P.W. 1) at about evening. She has further stated that she has not heard the cry of Gayatri. In cross-examination she has stated that she saw Niranjan coming from the side of the house of his father-in-law (P.W. 1) at about evening. She has further stated that she has not heard the cry of Gayatri. P.W. 9 who has got his house at a distance of about 100 yards from the house of P.W. 1, stated that on hearing hulla, he came to the place of occurrence where Gayatri was lying injured and Gayatri's mother (P.W. 2) was crying and saying that Niranjan killed Gayatri. About 20 to 25 days prior to the occurrence P.W. 1 complained before him and others that Niranjan assaulted him (P.W. 1) and his daughter Gayatri. So he asked the father of Niranjan to caution Niranjan not to do so as it was a slur on Marwari community He further stated that when he came to the place of occurrence, he found electric bulbs were burning in front of the house of P.W. 1 as well as in front of the house of Surjbhan Agarwalla and the place of occurrence was lighted thereby. P.W. 11, who is a tenant under P.W. 1 and occupied the ground floor of the building of P.W. 1, stated that the occurrence took place at about 9 p.m. on 26-6-1976 At that time he was taking food and while doing so, he heard a hulla "Mardia Mardia". He could not know who was raising that hulla. Leaving his food he came out of his home and found a man running away through the lane in front of his house. He chased that man to a certain distance, but could not catch that man. On his return, he found Gayatri lying on the ground in a pool of blood with injuries. This witness was declared hostile and was permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution. In cross-examination by the defence he has stated that he continues to be a tenant of P.W. 1. Saharapara lane was a very narrow lane through which a rickshaw can only pass. It was a dark fortnight. There was no light posts in Saharapara lane The lane was dark. When the police officer came light connections were brought from his house and police inspected the spot in the night. Gayatri was lying injured about two cubits away from his door. It was a dark fortnight. There was no light posts in Saharapara lane The lane was dark. When the police officer came light connections were brought from his house and police inspected the spot in the night. Gayatri was lying injured about two cubits away from his door. There was none present near Gayatri when be came out of his house hearing the noise. 6. From the above evidence, it is to be examined how far the evidence of P.W. 2 is to be accepted and how far she has been corroborated by P.Ws. 1, 3, 9 and 11. The deceased fell almost on the door steps of P.W. 11. The place where deceased tell down is also three feet away from the house of P.W. 3. P.W. 3 has categorically stated that she has not heard the cry of Gayatri nor P.W. 11 stated so. P.W. 3 has also stated that in the evening she saw Niranjan coming from the side of the house of P.W. 1. This fact has not been stated by P.W. 2 or P.W. 1. P.W. 9 has also not stated about hearing of the cry of Gayatri. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel, pointed out that in Marwari community the women folk do not utter the name of their husband. P.W. 2 has also stated: "We do not utter the names of our husbands". In view of this, he argues that it is impossible to believe that Gayatri cried by uttering the name of her husband. P.W. 2 has stated that she narrated the entire incident to the persons who gathered there including P.Ws. 3, 9 and 11. P.W. 1 stated that P.W. 2 narrated the incident, as already discussed. But curiously enough P.Ws. 3, 9 and 11 do not support P.W. 2. P.Ws. 3, 9 and 11 did not state that P.W. 2 shouted "Niranjan Mour Jhiuke Maripakauchi". Though P.Ws. 3 and 9 have stated that there was light in front of the house of P.W. 1 and the place of occurrence was lighted, P.W. 11 stated that it was a dark night and there was no light post in the Saharapara lane. The lane was dark. P.W. 13, the I.O. has also supported P.W. 11 by saying that there was no street light In the Saharapara lane. The lane was dark. P.W. 13, the I.O. has also supported P.W. 11 by saying that there was no street light In the Saharapara lane. The main road is about 22 yards from the spot and since it was night he (P.W. 13) held inquest over the deadbody in the following morning. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Appellant, argued that if the accused had come with the purpose of killing his wife (deceased), he must have come sometime prior to the occurrence and would have been waiting at the bottom of the stair-case in order that he may have a chance of killing the deceased in case she comes down. In that event the people of the lane specially P.Ws. 3, 9 and 11 and Surya Agarwala, Raghubir Biswal and Jayadev Biswal, whose houses are very nearby (as stated by P.W. 1) and other people moving in the lane could have seen the accused. Further when Gayatri raised alarm and there after her mother also raised alarm immediately on seeing the accused tabbing the deceased, It is expected that the people nearby or who were moving in the lane, could have seen the accused. But neither P.Ws. 3, 9 and 11 nor any body else stated that they saw the accused. It is not understood how the accused escaped by holding a blood stained knife when he was chased by P.W. 11 and some others and there was a commotion in the locality. The accused is a very well known person in the locality as disclosed from the evidence of the witnesses. P.W. 1 stated that many people, who gathered at that time, stated that Niranjan ran away after killing the deceased. But none has been examined on behalf of the prosecution to say so. From the above facts Mr. Mohanty argues that there was a chance of mistaken identity and it may be that the real assailant has escaped and the accused has been implicated. Mr. Mohanty further argued that there was absolutely no motive for the murder and on the contrary P.W. 1 has stated: Gayatri and the accused had no ill feeling till the date of occurrence. xx xx xx I was on good terms with Niranjan occurrence. Even my wife was also with Niranjan. Mr. Mohanty further argued that there was absolutely no motive for the murder and on the contrary P.W. 1 has stated: Gayatri and the accused had no ill feeling till the date of occurrence. xx xx xx I was on good terms with Niranjan occurrence. Even my wife was also with Niranjan. Though P.W. 1 has stated that few days prior to the occurrence there was some quarrel between Niranjan and himself subsequently Niranjan apologised and there is absolutely no evidence that the accused had any ill feeling against the deceased. On the other hand, there is evidence that there was good relation between the accused and the deceased. From the above, Mr. Mohanty argues that there was no motive on the part of the accused for killing the deceased. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other band, argues that motive is not a relevant consideration for determining the guilt of an accused. He cited a decision reported in Nachhittar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, wherein it has been observed: The failure of the prosecution to establish the motive for the crime committed by the accused does not mean that the entire prosecution case has to be thrown over-board. It only casts a duty on the Court to scrutinize the other evidence, particularly of the eye-witnesses, with greater care. He also cited another decision reported in Bahal Singh Vs. The State of Haryana where it has been held: Even if the genesis or the motive of the occurrence was not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only on that account, if otherwise it was reliable. In a decision reported in Rajinder Kumar and Another Vs. The State of Punjab it has been held: The motive behind a crime in this case one punishable u/s 302, Indian Penal Code is a relevant fact of which evidence can be given. The absence of a motive is also a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence. The circumstances which prove the guilt of the accused are, however, nor weakened at all by this fact that the motive has not been established. It offen happens that only the culprit himself knows what moved him to a certain course of action. Mr. Mohanty cited a decision reported in Atley Vs. The circumstances which prove the guilt of the accused are, however, nor weakened at all by this fact that the motive has not been established. It offen happens that only the culprit himself knows what moved him to a certain course of action. Mr. Mohanty cited a decision reported in Atley Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh where it has been held: Where there is clear proof of motive for the crime, that lends additional support to the finding of the Court that the accused was guilty but the absence of clear proof of motive does not necessarily lead to the contrary conclusion. The absence of proof of motive has this effect only that the other evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused has to be very closely examined. 7. From the above decisions the position that emerges is that where there is absence of clear proof of motive, the other evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused has to be scrutinised thoroughly. 8. In this case the only ocular testimony as to the occurrence is that of P.W. 2. P.Ws. 3 and 9 have only stated that they heard P.W. 2 saying "Niranjan killed Gayatri" as already discussed. So the evidence of P.W. 2 is to be scrutinised thoroughly and it is to be seen how far she can be believed. P.W. 2 has stated that on hearing the cry of the deceased "Ma Daudake As, Niranjan Martahi" she came down the staircase and found the accused stabbing the deceased. The deceased was stabbed at the bottom of the stair-case and fell down near the door step of P.W. 11. P.W. 3 is a front door neighbour and she was inside the house only 3 or 4 feet away. But none of these witnesses, P.Ws. 3 and 11, have stated that they heard the cry of the deceased though they were nearer to deceased than P.W. 2. P.W. 9 also did not not hear the cry of the deceased. It is the prosecution case that after stabbing, the deceased ran away with the blood stained knife and he was-chased by P.W. 11 and others. But nobody has come forward to state that he has seen the accused running away with a blood stained knife. As disclosed from the evidence, there was a great commotion in the locality and several people gathered. But nobody has come forward to state that he has seen the accused running away with a blood stained knife. As disclosed from the evidence, there was a great commotion in the locality and several people gathered. The place of occurrence is inside Bargarh town and it is not known how the accused could run away with the blood stained knife without being caught or noticed by anybody. Though P.Ws. 3 and 9 stared that there was light in front of the house of P.W. 1 and the place of occurrence was lighted, P.W. 11 stated that it was a dark night and there was no light post in the Sahara para lane and the lane was dark. P.W. 13, the I.O. has also stated that there was no street light in the Saharapara lane and he held inquest over the deadbody in the following morning since it was night. P.Ws. 3, 9 and 11 did not state that P.W. 2 told them that she heard the cry of the deceased "Ma Daudake As, Niranjan Martahai". This is a significant omission which casts a serious doubt in the evidence of P.W. 2. P.W. 3 has further stated that in the evening she saw Niranjan coming from the side of the house of P.W. 1. but this fact has not been stated by P.Ws. 1 or 2. If Niranjan came to the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2, in the evening, it is not known why P.Ws. 1 and 2 did not disclose this fact to anybody. If the accused had come to the house of P.W. 1 with a purpose to kill the deceased at about 9 p.m. (the time of occurrence), he must have been loitering some time prior to the occurrence near about the place in order that he might have a chance of killing the deceased, in case she comes down. But there is absolutely no evidence that anybody has seen the accused moving near about the place prior to the occurrence. Mr. Mohanty referred to Ext 15, the forwarding letter of the I.O. dated 28-6-1976 while sending the accused to Court and submitted that in the forwarding letter though it is mentioned that several persons have seen the occurrence, their names have not been mentioned in the said letter. Admittedly by that time the I.O. has already, recorded the statements of P.Ws. Mohanty referred to Ext 15, the forwarding letter of the I.O. dated 28-6-1976 while sending the accused to Court and submitted that in the forwarding letter though it is mentioned that several persons have seen the occurrence, their names have not been mentioned in the said letter. Admittedly by that time the I.O. has already, recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and some others, But curiously enough, he has not mentioned the names of the witnesses including the occurrence witness in the forwarding letter which casts serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case specially that of P.W. 2, who claims herself to be an eye-witness. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the, case, it is difficult to rely on the sole testimony of P.W. 2, who is the only eye-witness to the occurrence. Learned Standing Counsel drew our attention to the fact that when the accused surrendered at (he police station at about 1.30 p.m. on 26/27-6-1976, some blood clots were found on the upper portion of his palm. The I.O. (P.W. 13) requisitioned the services of P.W. 6, a Pharmacist, who took out the blood clots and rapped the same in a piece of white paper and handed over the same to the police. On examination by the Chemical Examiner and Serologist, it was found to be blood which is a Circumstance against the accused. In the Chemical Examiner's report (Ext. 10) in item No. 3 it has been mentioned that soaked blood from right wrist of the accused marked as C was found. In the result column "result of examination" it has been mentioned that blood was found from Ext, C. The Serologist report (Ext. 11) says that item No. 2 marked 'C' is soaking earth (blood) and no opinion has been given as to item No. 2 Thus there is serious discrepancy in these two reports as to whether item no marked 'C' was actually soaked blood from the right wrist of the accused or not. So in view of this, it is difficult to rely on the two exhibits. 9. Considering the entire evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused-Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the Appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 10. So in view of this, it is difficult to rely on the two exhibits. 9. Considering the entire evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused-Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the Appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 10. In the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed and the orders of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant is set aside- He be set at liberty forthwith. B.K. Ray, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Allowed