N. N. Goawami ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3. 000. 00 or in default to further imprisonment for two years Before we deal with the merits of the appeal, it is necessary to notice the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the State. The objection was that Mr. I. U. Khan Advocate appearing for the accused being an Addl. Public Prosecutor could not appear for the accused in view of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, M. L. Jain, J. in the case of Lt. Col. K. 0. Sud v. S. C. Gudimani, Criminal Revision No. 224 of 1980 decided on February 13, 1981=vol. 20 DLT (1981) (SN) 30. Asimilar objection was taken before the learned Single Judge in that case. In order to decide that objection the learned Judge posed the following three questions : (1) Whether a Public Prosecutor or an Addl. Public Prosecutor or a panel lawyer for that matter can appear, against the State? (2) Whether it is permissible to the State or the Administration to permit a Public Prosecutor or an Addl. Public Prosecutor to appear, against the State? (3) Whether a Public Prosecutor can appear on behalf of the accused person in the cases instituted on a complaint by a private party?the learned Judge held that in all prosecutions, the State is the Prosecutor and the proceedings are always treated as proceedings between the State and the accused. Reliance for this proposition was placed on certain judgments of various High Courts. The learned Judge also discussed the position of a District Attorney in U. S. A. and functions of a Crown s Solicitor in U. K. It was noticed that unlike U. S. A. the Treasury Counsel in Old Bailey, U. K. who were retained to prosecute in the Director s cases, had criminal practice and were entitled to appear for the defence and quite frequently they do so. The learned Judge also noticed certain provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code and came to the conclusion that the office of a Public Prosecutor was a public office and involved duties of public nature which were of vital importance to the Public. The learned Judge also noticed certain provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code and came to the conclusion that the office of a Public Prosecutor was a public office and involved duties of public nature which were of vital importance to the Public. It was further noticed that the office of a Public Prosecutor was an office of responsibility and was more important than many others because the holder is required to prosecute with detachment on the one hand and yet with vigour on the other. Relying on certain observations in the case of Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and Excise, (1972) 2 All H. R. 353 at page 376, the learned Judge held that the Public Prosecutor whether retained or salaried can work only for one client i. e. the State and to yield to any other position will be to damage the dignity, impartiality and efficiency of the office. The learned Judge also accepted the contention that the Public Prosecutor and along with him, his juniors have an access to official and confidential records and if they are allowed private practice, then there are many chances of this secret knowledge being used against the State. In view of these observations, the three questions posed by the learned Judge were answered, as under : (1) The Public Prosecutor, the Addl. Public Prosecutor cannot appear against the State in criminal matters. That is so even where the party has carefully avoided to implead the State as a party in a revision or an appeal, or any other criminal proceedings. This applied to panel lawyers as well, because no panel lawyer can appear without being appointed as an Addl. Public Prosecutor. (2) It is not permissible for the State or the Delhi Administration to allow the Public Prosecutor or the Addl. Public Prosecutor to appear against itself and it must provide so specifically in the terms of their appointment. (3) The Public Prosecutor cannot appear on behalf of the accused even in cases instituted on a complaint by a private party. ( 2 ) THOUGH much can be said for the conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge but after giving our careful consideration to the submissions made before us, we are unable to agree with the same. (3) The Public Prosecutor cannot appear on behalf of the accused even in cases instituted on a complaint by a private party. ( 2 ) THOUGH much can be said for the conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge but after giving our careful consideration to the submissions made before us, we are unable to agree with the same. We proceed to record our reasons for not agreeing with the order of the learned Single Judge in the case of Lt. Col. K. C. Sud v. S. C. Gudimani (Supra ). The Public Prosecutors or Addl. Public Prosecutors are appointed under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Chapter XXIV of the said Code contains certain provisions relating to the powers and functions of the Public Prosecutors. Under Section 301, the Public Prosecutor is entitled to appear and plead the case of which he is incharge without any written authority before any Court in which that case is under enquiry, trial or appeal. Under Section 302 he can appear before any Magistrate inquiring into or trying case without the permission of the Magistrate. Section 321 authorises a Public Prosecutor incharge of a case to withdraw from the prosecution of any case either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which the accused is being tried with the consent of the Court. Sections 377 and 378 of the Code authorise the Public Prosecutors to file appeals etc. in the cases in which the State Government may direct them to do so. Besides these provisions, there is no other provision in the Code which deals with the functions and powers of Public Prosecutor. We do not find any general authority of a Public Prosecutor and authority or powers are confined in relation to the cases entrusted to him by the State Government or of which he is the incharge. There is no provision in the Code which prohibits a Public Prosecutor to appear in any private cases. ( 3 ) CHAPTER IV of the Advocates Act, 1961 deals with the right to practice of an Advocate. Section 30 of the said Act is, as follows : "s. 30. There is no provision in the Code which prohibits a Public Prosecutor to appear in any private cases. ( 3 ) CHAPTER IV of the Advocates Act, 1961 deals with the right to practice of an Advocate. Section 30 of the said Act is, as follows : "s. 30. Right of Advocates to practice.-Subject to the provisions of this Act, every Advocate whose name is entered in the (State roll) shall be entitled as of right to practice throughout the territories to which this Act extends : (i) in all courts including the Supreme Court. (ii) before any tribunal or person legally authorised to take evidence; and (iii) before any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under any law for the time being in force entitled to practise. "chapter V of theAct deals with the conduct of Advocates. The power to inquire into the conduct of Advocate is with the State Bar Council and under Section 35 of the Act when a complaint is received by a State Bar Council and the said Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it has to refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee. The disciplinary committee, after inquiring into the case, may dismiss the complaint, reprimand the advocate; suspend the advocate from the practice for such period as it may deem fit; or may remove the name of the Advocate from the State roll of the Advocates. After corning into force of the said Act the. High Court has absolutely no power to inquire into the conduct of any advocate. The power of the High Court is restricted to frame certain rules under Section 34 of the Act. In the case of Chenna Reddi Veera Redd. i and another v. Chilakuru Rama Chandra Reddi and another, 1964 (1) Crl. L. J. 89, an advocate was appearing for two petitioners in the initial proceedings taken against them. Till then there was no conflict in the interest of two petitioners. Subsequently, however, some conflict arose and the Magistrate under its inherent powers had restrained the appearance of the advocate in that case. L. J. 89, an advocate was appearing for two petitioners in the initial proceedings taken against them. Till then there was no conflict in the interest of two petitioners. Subsequently, however, some conflict arose and the Magistrate under its inherent powers had restrained the appearance of the advocate in that case. Andhra Pradesh High Court, however, set aside the said order and held that the Court had no power under Sections 30 and 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 to prohibit the counsel from appearing as an advocate for one of the petitioners. It was further held that the Bar Council was an autonomous body and in view of the provisions of Section 7 of the Advocates Act, the Court was not justified in exercising its inherent power. The learned Judge further held that the advocates were members of a highly honourable and learned profession and it was expected that they would do nothing which would adversely affect the reputation and good name of the profession. On ethical and professional ground if it appeared that continuance on the part of an advocate in a case was liable to objection, the advocate would disassociate himself keeping in view the highest traditions of the profession. The Court must desist from any action which was likely to injure or jeopardize the interests of the profession. In the case of Mast Ram, Advocate, v. B. K. Bedi, Advocate, 1973 (1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 367, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepore had disallowed the application of the petitioner in case No. 750-1 pending before him for appearance in the case on the ground that he had been cited as a witness by another advocate. The learned Judge of the High Court after going into the facts of the case, observed as under: "this Court has to consider his rights in the light of the constitutional provisions. As I observed earlier an indication is available from Article 22 (1) of the Constitution that a person accused of an offence or a person arrested has a right to be defended by a counsel of his choice. If a discretion were to be vested in a Court to disallow a counsel to conduct a particular criminal case, then this discretion would at once come in conflict with the right of the arrested person guaranteed under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution. Such an interpretation has to be avoided. If a discretion were to be vested in a Court to disallow a counsel to conduct a particular criminal case, then this discretion would at once come in conflict with the right of the arrested person guaranteed under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution. Such an interpretation has to be avoided. In view of what has been. stated above, I set aside the order in revision and direct that Shri Mast Ram Advocate would be at liberty to appear in the case subject of course to the condition that Shri Pyare Lal accused still wants to engage him. "the learned Judge further held that after passing of the Advocates Act, the Bar Councils have been given the jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against the advocates if they arc found to be remiss in the performance of their duties in a manner which is worthy of their profession and no Court is invested with any jurisdiction to control the actions of an advocate who is cited as a witness and who wants to represent an accused person in a criminal trial. The Andhra Pradesh case 8. Naganna v. Krishna Murthy awl another, A. I. R 1965 Andhra Pradesh 320 on which the reliance was placed by the learned Judge in the case of Lt. Col. K. C. Sud v. S. C. Gudimani, is clearly distinguishable. In that case the Collector had permitted the A. P. P. Grade I to appear in a private complaint filed against two police constables. The High Court held that the A. PP. Grade I must obviously be a qualified legal practitioner in view of the system of recruitment to that office and on his appointment as A. P. P. Grade I he must have suspended his practice upon entering Government service as a whole-time Government servant. The High Court held that while functioning as A. P. P. Grade I, he cannot be in the position of an advocate practising in the Bar. In the case before us, there is no material to hold that the advocate for the appellant has given up his private practice and his name is not borne on the common roll of the Bar Council. In the case before us, there is no material to hold that the advocate for the appellant has given up his private practice and his name is not borne on the common roll of the Bar Council. Rather it was not disputed that the name of the advocate is borne on the common roll of the Bar Council and there is no prohibition in his contract with the State Government from appearing in private cases. ( 4 ) FOR the reasons recorded above, we do not find any option but to disagree with the view taken by the learned Judge in the case of Lt. Col. K. C. Sud v. S. C. Gudimani, and hold that the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent has no merit. The preliminary objection is accordingly rejected. Now coming to the merits of the appeal, the appellant Mohd. Sabir was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi to be tried for having committed murder of one Murari Lal Trivedi. The Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi charged the appellant for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried and was accordingly tried. The case of the prosecution was that on 16th December, 1976 at about 1. 45 p. m. , the appellant inflicted several injuries with a knife on the person of one Murari Lal Trivedi, in front of, House No. A-7. Green Park, New Delhi. The incident of stabbing was alleged to have been witnessed by three persons namely Major Madan Gopal Singha (Public Witness 1), Ajit Kumar Banerjee (PW2) and Ghanshyam (Public Witness 18 ). It was further alleged that Murari LalTrivedi immediately after being stabbed, boarded athree wheeler scooter and reached Safdarjang Hospital where he was examined by Dr. Sunil Kumar Banerjee (Public Witness 5) at 3. 05 P. M. At about 3. 20 p. m. a report was lodged at Police Station, Hauz Khas by Jai Parkash duty constable, Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi. On receiving information, S. T. Dalip Singh of Police Station, Hauz Khas reached Safdarjang Hospital where Dr. Johri (PW21) declared the patient unfit to make the statement. 1 hereafter S. I. Dalip Singh reached the place of occurrence. There he met the three eye witnesses mentioned above and recorded their statements. On receiving information, S. T. Dalip Singh of Police Station, Hauz Khas reached Safdarjang Hospital where Dr. Johri (PW21) declared the patient unfit to make the statement. 1 hereafter S. I. Dalip Singh reached the place of occurrence. There he met the three eye witnesses mentioned above and recorded their statements. On the basis of the statement of Madan Gopal Singha (Public Witness 1)a rukka Ex. (Public Witness 1/a) being F. I. R. No. 517/76 was recorded at Police Station, Hauz Khas. It was also alleged that from the spot S. 1. Dalip Singh took into possession vide memo (Ex. Public Witness PW3/a) one pair of shoes, a lungi and a khes (Exts. P1 to P3) which it was alleged the appellant had left behind while fleeing. On the same day, i. e. on 16. 12. 1976 Murari Lal Trivedi died in Safdarjang Hospital. On 17. 12. 1976 the dead body of Murari Lal Trivedi, after being duly identified by Joginder Singh Sethi (Public Witness 7) and Mahinder Kumar Joshi (Public Witness 8) and after the prepration of inquest report (Ex. Public Witness PW22/b), was sent for postmortem. Dr. Dogra (Public Witness 19) conducted the post-mortem and submitted his report (Ex. PW19/a ). Dalip Singh S. I. after receiving a secret information that the appellant who had been named as khan in the F. I. R. was sitting near the pedestrian over bridge near Income-Tax Office, arrested the appellant. It was further alleged that on 21. 12. 1976 while in the custody of police, the appellant made a disclosure statement that he could get the knife and his blood-stained shirt recovered. As a result of the said disclosure statement, the knife (Ex. P. 4) and a torn shirt (Ex. P5) were recovered at the instance and pointing out of the appellant. The disclosure and recovery were witnessed by Tribhuwan (Public Witness 9) and Badle Ram, Head Constable (Public Witness 12 ). The knife (Ex. P. 4) was sent to Dr. T. D. Dogra who opined that the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report could be caused with the same. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution the motive for the murder was that the appellant had entered in the gallary of the house of the deceased some time in October, 1976 and the deceased had reprimanded him and asked him not to enter again. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution the motive for the murder was that the appellant had entered in the gallary of the house of the deceased some time in October, 1976 and the deceased had reprimanded him and asked him not to enter again. It is because of this incident that the appellant bore ill- will against the deceased. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 22 witnesses including the three eye witnesses. ( 6 ) MAJOR Singha (Public Witness 1) in his deposition stated that on 16. 12. 1976 at about 1. 45 p. m. he was basking in the sun and looking towards the road while sitting in the verandah of the second floor of building No. A-8, Greek Park, New Delhi where he was residing as a tenant. He heard the noise in front of the adjoining builng bearing No. A-7 and saw the accused whom he had known earlier as khan and working at the tempo Adda in front of his house, stabbing Murarilal Trivedi 6-7 times with a knife which he was holding in his right hand. The witness further deposed that he shouted that the accused should be caught but the accused ran towards house No. A-6 and escaped. He further deposed that Murari Lal Trivedi (deceased) who was soiled and bleeding got up and managed to get into a three wheeler scooter which had come there and went towards Safdarjang Hospital. Later in the evening he learnt that Murari Lal had died. He further deposed that though he did not know the accused personally but had seen him many a times at the tempo adda earlier. He identified the accused present in the Court. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know the name and parentage of the accused except that he was generally known as khan . He also stated that 7-8 labourers were working in that building but he did not know their names and he did not know them personally. He stated that number of persons had collected at the spot but he could not come down because he was suffering from half partial paralysis of legs. In cross-examination, he further stated that Murari Lal Trivedi resided on the first floor of the building where he lived and he had not heard of any enmity between the accused and Murari Lal Trivedi. In cross-examination, he further stated that Murari Lal Trivedi resided on the first floor of the building where he lived and he had not heard of any enmity between the accused and Murari Lal Trivedi. He also stated that at the time of incident the accused was wearing chadar which he left at the spot before fleeing. PW2, Ajit Kumar Banerjee was also a resident of the same building. He stated that he was employed with Jaipur Gem House which had dealings with Tourists and used to often take tempo from the front of that building. He had further stated that he had known the accused earlier as khan though he did not know his full name, parentage and address. He deposed that on 16. 12. 1976 at about 1. 45 p. m. it was recess time for him and he had taken his meals at Satkar Hotel which was nearby. While coming back after having his meals he saw from the distance of about 100 Yds. Khan accused stabbing Murari Lal Trivedi with knife. He then ran towards them but the accused after giving several stab injuries ran towards a nearby house which was under construction. He chased him but the accused escaped behind a lane and could not be caught. When he returned to the spot, he learnt that Murari Lal Trivedi had gone in a three wheeler scooter to the hospital and he followed him. He found Murari Lal Trivedi lying in the casualty ward with several stab wounds on his body. The doctor asked for blood which the witness gave. After giving the blood he returned to his house at about 5. 00 p. m. and found the police present there. The police took into possession khes type chadar, a pair of shoes and a lungi there. According to Raghbir Singh the said articles belonged to the accused. In cross-examination, he stated that he had known Murari Lal Trivedi and the accused earlier and he could see the incident fairly from 100 Yds. He further stated that he often used to take tempo from that adda and in fact on that very morning he had taken one such tempo. He also admitted that he did not know the name, parentage and address of the accused except that he was known as khan . He further stated that he often used to take tempo from that adda and in fact on that very morning he had taken one such tempo. He also admitted that he did not know the name, parentage and address of the accused except that he was known as khan . The third eye witness Ghanshyam (Public Witness 18) deposed that at lunch time he was levelling earth in open chowk by the side of the gate while the labourers were working in the room. At about 1. 45 or 2. 00 p. m. he heard cries of help and saw the accused stabbing a person with a knife. He could not give the name of the person who was being stabbed but he stated that he lived in the neighbourhood. He further deposed that out of fear he ran inside kothi No. A-6 and at about 5. 00 p. m. the police came and he told them what he had seen. He further deposed that the police took into possession chadar, lungi and a pair of shoes belonging to the accused from the spot. In crossexamination) he stated that he had come to Delhi only two or three days earlier before the incident and he had not known the accused or the injured earlier. He stated that the accused at the time of incident was wearing lungi on his head and chadar on his body. The evidence of Public Witness Public Witness 3 Raghbir Singh is confined to identifying the articles Ex. P. I to Ex. P. 3, as he stated that he knew Khan earlier and also knew that these articles belonged to him. PW6 Usha Trivedi is the widow of the deceased. She stated that the deceased had before the incident gone out of the house after taking meals and then she heard the noise that pathan had stabbed her husband. She ran out but found that her husband had already left for the hospital and the pathan had run away. She identified the accused person in the Court and stated that the said pathan used to work at the tempo stand outside their house. She further stated that in October 1976 the appellant had come in the gallary of their house withoutpermission and her husband had told him not to come again inside their house and for this reason accused carried ill-will. She further stated that in October 1976 the appellant had come in the gallary of their house withoutpermission and her husband had told him not to come again inside their house and for this reason accused carried ill-will. She further deposed that after the incident, she went in a scooter to the hospital and found Murari Lal Trivedi conscious. She had a talk with him and Murari Lal told her to take out the money from his pocket which she did. She found some police persons and doctors present and a writing was being effected. She wanted to tell the police that the pathan had stabbed her husband but the police stated that her evidence was not being recorded and on this Murari Lal Trivedi said that she was his wife and was right in saying that the pathan had stabbed him. In cross-examination, she stated that the Police had come to inquire from her after about 10-15 days of the incident and she could not remember if she had told the police of the accused coming in their house in October 1976 or what talk she had with her husband in the hospital. According to her, she became veiy nervous when she learnt of the stabbing and went to the hospital without taking steps to inform the police. ( 7 ) NOW we come to the medical evidence. Dr. Sunil Kumar Banerjee (Public Witness 5) deposed that the deceased was brought to Safdarjang Hospital on 16. 12. 1976 at 3. 05 p. m. with an alleged history of being stabbed by some person in Green Park. He had found that at that time the deceased was conscious, pulse normal, pupil were equal both eyes reacting to light, resparation was 20 per minute, blood pressure 200/160 and heart was normal. On local examination, he found the following injuries:- "1. Cut wound in left chest wall I" below the clavical 2" X I". 2. Cut wound in the mid-line below Xiphoit 1"x 1". 3. Cut wound/ over the abdomen left side I" latteral line. 4. Gut wound right hypochondrium 1"x". 5. Cut wound right loin 1"x" 6. Cut wound left knee 1"x ". He further deposed that all the wounds were caused by sharp edged weapon and the patient expired at 8. 30 p. m. on the same day. ( 8 ) DR. 3. Cut wound/ over the abdomen left side I" latteral line. 4. Gut wound right hypochondrium 1"x". 5. Cut wound right loin 1"x" 6. Cut wound left knee 1"x ". He further deposed that all the wounds were caused by sharp edged weapon and the patient expired at 8. 30 p. m. on the same day. ( 8 ) DR. T. D. Dogra (Public Witness 19) of All India Institute of Medical Sciences conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased. He also found seven injuries caused by sharp edged weapon. The cause of death, according to him, was shock as a result of internal haemorrhage and injuries were to viceras. He opined that the injuries were ante-mortem and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further deposed that according to his opinion, injuries Nos. 1 to 7 could be caused by the dagger (Ex. P. 4 ). Public Witness Public Witness. 9. Tribhuwan Nath and Public Witness Public Witness. l2,badle Ram are witnesses to the disclosure statement and recovery were made at the instance of the accused. They have deposed that the accused gave the statement that he had thrown the knife near the bushes near the park and could get the same recovered. His statement was recorded vide Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 9/a which was attested by them. After the statement, the accused led them to the place and got the knife (Ex. P. 4) recovered from the bushes. A torn shirt was also lying there and was taken into possession, which is Ex. P. 5. ( 9 ) THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there has been the clear testimony of three independent eye witnesses who saw the incident and it was the accused who inflicted several stab injuries with a knife on Murari Lal Trivedi. He found that their presence was natural at the spot and none of them was shown to be, in any manner, inimical to the accused. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge also found that there was enough corroboration inasmuch as the Duty Constable, Jai Parkash at the Safdarjang Hospital and Usha Trivedi, wife of the deceased, stated that Murari Lal Trivedi had said and confirmed that he was khan (Pathan) who had stabbed him. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge also found that there was enough corroboration inasmuch as the Duty Constable, Jai Parkash at the Safdarjang Hospital and Usha Trivedi, wife of the deceased, stated that Murari Lal Trivedi had said and confirmed that he was khan (Pathan) who had stabbed him. He found that the testimony of Usha Trivedi has been natural, straight and with no amblance of tutoring. The second corroboration, according to him, was of the recovery of lungi, Chadar and shoes left by the accused at the spot. The third corroboration was the disclosure statement and the recovery of the blood-stained knife and the kurta from the park in Hauz Khas and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge found nothing to reject the testimony of Tribhuwan Nath and Badle Ram, the witnesses to the said disclosure and recovery. Accordingly the appellant was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and after hearing him on the question of sentence, -was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3000. 00 or in default to further imprisonment for two years. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any infirmity in the evidence of the witnesses and submitted that it could be a case of mistaken identity inasmuch as the eye witnesses did not give the name of the accused or his parentage. This argument has to be rejected because Major Singha (Public Witness 1) had stated in clear terms that he had been seeing the accused and had known him as khan . His evidence is quite natural inasmuch as he is living next door and he knew the accused as also the deceased. He could have no possible motive to falsely implicate the appellant. To the same effect is the evidence of Public Witness Public Witness. 2. ( 11 ) THE only other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the motive for murder as given by the prosecution was, too, inadequate and as such it should be held that there was no motive and in the circumstances the prosecution case should be rejected. 2. ( 11 ) THE only other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the motive for murder as given by the prosecution was, too, inadequate and as such it should be held that there was no motive and in the circumstances the prosecution case should be rejected. The Supreme Court, in the case of Molu and others v. State of Haryana, A. I. R. 1976 Supreme Court 2499, observed in paragraph 11:- "it is well settled that where the direct evidence regarding the assault is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. Sometimes the motive is clear and can be proved and sometimes, however, the motive is shrouded in mystery and it is very difficult to locate the same. If, however, the evidence of eye witnesses is credit-worthy and is believed by the Court which has placed implicit reliance on them, the question whether there is any motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant. " ( 12 ) IN the present case as we have found that the evidence of the eye witnesses is perfectly reliable and nothing can be said against them, it is not necessary for us to look to the motive and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge also rightly rejected this contention advanced before him. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has to be maintained and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.