ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The respondent along with two other co-accused, namely, Chander and Chhotey were tried for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The trial court held all the three accused guilty of the said offences and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. On an appeal filed, the High Court, by the impugned judgment, while confirming the order of conviction and sentence as regards the other two accused, acquitted Rajvir (the respondent herein). 3. To put it briefly, the prosecution case is that on 29.3.1979 at about 8 p.m. the accused persons knocked the door of Dr. Gopal Krishna (the deceased) who was inside his house. At that time, Shambhu Dayal (PW-1) was lying in the gallery close to the house of the deceased. The respondent-Rajvir gave a call from outside that a patient had come who needed to be attended at once. Dr. Gopal Krishna (the deceased) opened the door, and then all the three accused pounced upon and dragged him outside and started assaulting him with knives. The deceased Dr. Gopal Krishna and his brother (PW-1) started shouting and, on that, Ram Autar (PW-2) and Satish Chandra (PW-3) came to the place of occurrence; all of them tried to intervene, but in vain. Dr. Gopal Krishna died on the spot and thereafter the accused ran away. The motive for committing the murder of deceased Dr. Gopal Krishna was said to be that the accused Chander had a grudge against the deceased as his land was sold by his father to the deceased and he wanted to get back that land forcibly, and that there was also civil litigation between the accused Chander and the deceased on that account. Accused Chhotey had also motive against the deceased on account of an adjoining property which he wanted to purchase, but the same had been purchased by the deceased. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed against all the three accused. The prosecution in support of its case mainly relied on the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and PW-6 Shri Chaman Lal, Pradhan of the Village. The trial court on appreciation of evidence placed on record, came to the conclusion that all the three accused did commit the murder of the deceased. The prosecution in support of its case mainly relied on the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and PW-6 Shri Chaman Lal, Pradhan of the Village. The trial court on appreciation of evidence placed on record, came to the conclusion that all the three accused did commit the murder of the deceased. Consequently, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced them to imprisonment for life, as already stated above. 4. The High Court in the appeal having reappreciated the evidence, referring to the statements of the witnesses, the motive for the murder and other circumstances, concluded that the other two accused were guilty of the murder and maintained the sentence passed against them. However, as far as the respondent is concerned, the High Court felt doubt as to his participation in the commission of the murder of the deceased, on the ground that there was no motive, whatsoever, for the respondent to kill the deceased. As is evident from the impugned judgment, the High Court specifically stating that to be on the safer side and taking all precautions as against the possible false implication of the respondent, acquitted him giving the benefit of doubt. 5. The State was not satisfied with the impugned judgment, hence has brought this appeal to this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the State urged that the High Court committed a serious error in acquitting the respondent having recorded that though the evidence led by the prosecution fully established the participation of all the three accused; the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is trustworthy and acceptable; and that the trial court as well as the High Court found, as a matter of fact, that their evidence were acceptable and reliable, yet acquitted the respondent. He also pointed out that PWs. 1 to 3 deposed that the respondent also assaulted the deceased. The learned counsel added that in addition to the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, there is also evidence of PW-6 Chamanlal, Pradhan of the Village and nothing could be said to disbelieve his evidence. He finally submitted that mere absence of motive was no ground to record an acquittal if the prosecution had succeeded in establishing guilt of the respondent on other evidence including that of the eye-witnesses. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argued in support and justification of the impugned judgment. He finally submitted that mere absence of motive was no ground to record an acquittal if the prosecution had succeeded in establishing guilt of the respondent on other evidence including that of the eye-witnesses. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argued in support and justification of the impugned judgment. He submitted that the judgment of the High Court has to be read as a whole and not only the paragraph pointed by the learned counsel for the State wherein it is stated that although the evidence disclosed fully the participation of all the three accused in the commission of the murder of the deceased, yet the respondent could be acquitted giving him benefit of doubt in the absence of motive. He submitted that the High Court has considered the entire evidence and also the motive aspect which was also discussed elaborately by the trial court. He did not dispute the legal position that establishing the existence of motive to convict an accused is not necessary if otherwise the prosecution establishes the case against the accused. But on the facts and circumstances, motive in this case assumed importance which the High Court rightly took note of, in acquitting the respondent. He further submitted that the reasons given by the High Court for acquitting the respondent cannot be said to be perverse. This submission he made to say that an order of acquittal cannot be upset even though a different view could be taken, or that a view of the High Court was wrong; an order of acquittal can be disturbed only when the reasons recorded by the High Court were either perverse or they were not supportable on the basis of the evidence placed on record or there was non-consideration of material evidence. 8. We have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is the case of the prosecution that the other two accused, namely, Chander and Chhotey had motive against the deceased and the respondent had no motive whatsoever against the deceased; all the three accused were friendly among them. It is true that PWs. 1 to 3 have supported the prosecution case that all the three accused went to the house of the deceased on the date of the incident and the respondent called the deceased to attend a patient immediately. It is true that PWs. 1 to 3 have supported the prosecution case that all the three accused went to the house of the deceased on the date of the incident and the respondent called the deceased to attend a patient immediately. PWs 1 to 3 also stated that all the three accused assaulted the deceased but the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 is specific and consistent as to the assault by the accused Chander on the deceased with knife. As to the assault by the respondent, the statements of the witnesses are general and vague. No specific overt act is attributed to the respondent. It may also be mentioned here that there was no recovery of knife from the respondent. There was recovery of blood-stained clothes from the accused Chander. It is possible that on the accused Chander and Chhotey asking the respondent to accompany them to the house of the deceased to show a patient or the respondent himself might have taken a patient also for examination by the Doctor. Mere presence of the respondent on the spot when the incident took place was not sufficient to hold that the respondent had shared the common intention to kill the deceased; particularly so when the respondent had no motive whatsoever. PW-1 the brother of the deceased himself has stated that the respondent had no ill-will or motive against the deceased. It is under these circumstances, the motive aspect assumed importance. There is no dispute as to the legal position that in the absence of motive; or the alleged motive having not been established; an accused cannot be convicted if the prosecution is successful in establishing the crime said to have been committed by an accused by other evidence. At any rate, a doubt definitely arose in the case in hand as to what was the reason or motive for the respondent to commit the murder of the deceased. In State of U.P. v. Hari Prasad & Ors. [ 1974(3) SCC 673 ], this Court dealing with the aspect of motive has stated thus : "This is not to say that even if the witnesses are truthful, the prosecution must fail for the reason that the motive of the crime is difficult to find. For the matter of that, it is never incumbent on the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime. For the matter of that, it is never incumbent on the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime. And often times, a motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by that motive. But, if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in with the alleged motive." The present case is not the one where the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt by other evidence on record to say motive aspect was immaterial. 9. Under these circumstances it is difficult for us to hold that the view taken by the High Court is either unjustified or untenable so also it cannot be said that the reasons given by the High Court to record an acquittal were either perverse or not based on the evidence merely because the High Court in one of the paragraphs stated that the prosecution case is though established by evidence, but in the absence of motive the respondent could not be acquitted. If the judgment of the High Court is read in its entirety, it appears to us that the High Court kept in view all aspects of the case. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. Bail bonds of the respondent shall stand discharged.