P. K. BISWAS, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- i. d. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months passed by Shri M. M. Sarkar, the learned Sessions Judge, Aandn Islands, Port Blair in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2001 against the convict/appellant Lakhi Ram Gawala. ( 2 ) THE short facts leading to the prosecution of the present convict/appellant are as under: one Smt. Lalita Kumari, daughter of the present convict/appellant came to the Police Station and narrated the information before the police which was reduced into writing and after the writing was made complete the same was read over and explained to her and thereafter she put her signature on the same after being satisfied that the same was correctly written. ( 3 ) IN the First Information Report it was alleged that the defacto-complainant then aged about 12 years, alongwith her brothers used to reside with their parents in their house at Hutbay in Little Andaman and her father was a Mahaut of Elephant of the Forest Corporation at Hutbay earlier and subsequently became a tree feller under the same Corporation and their mother Smt. Sumathi Bai was also working as Labourer (Private) near Hutbay school. It was further alleged in the FIR that her mother sometime used to come home early and sometime she used to come home late and thereupon her father used to abuse and scold her mother complaining about her late coming. In reply her mother used to say that due to heavy work she was compelled to come home late. ( 4 ) ON 8th September, 1998, the complainant returned home from the school as usual around 3. 30 p. m. and at about 5. 30 p. m. when her mother was sitting in the house after taking bath and changing the cloth, then her father Lakhi Ram Gawala came there and told her mother that some people are telling bad about her and on that occasion her mother wanted to know that who are those persons telling about all these things and after that her father did not say anything to her mother. ( 5 ) AT 5. ( 5 ) AT 5. 15 in the morning on 9th September, 1998, the complainant woke up and prior to that her brother Vishnu also woke up and he was sitting on the wooden stair-case and this complainant engaged herself in cleaning the bed and their mother Sumathi Bai was then engaged in washing the utensils sitting inside the kitchen facing out side of the house. At that time her father, the convict/appellant was sitting in the next room and after getting up from there and passing through the middle room he went to the kitchen and lifted the axe which was kept in the corner of the door of the kitchen and attacked on the head of the mother of the complainant with full force and as a result it started bleeding profusely and she fell down on her back after making a sound like ?aah? and again her father attacked on the head of her mother with the axe and after attacking her mother for the second time her father kept the axe in the bathroom and went towards the jungle on the back side. ( 6 ) THEN on seeing the same the complainant rushed to her mother and found heavy bleeding was caused from her head and she immediately brought drinking water and tried to give her and after taking one sip only, the head of her mother tilted on one side and at this complainant understood that her mother was dead. It was further claimed by the complainant that besides her, her brother Vishnu also witnessed the entire occurrence and it was also stated by her in the FIR that as her mother used to come late from her working place her father due to such grudge attacked her mother with axe and killed her mother. It was further alleged in the FIR that immediately after the occurrence the defacto-complainant ran out side and said loudly that her father has killed her mother with axe and on hearing her voice uncle Kamraj and uncle Amirthalingam who are also residents of the same barrack came out and inquired from her as to what happened to her mother and on reply the defacto-complainant again told them that her father killed her mother with axe and ran towards the jungle. ( 7 ) ON hearing about the same Amirthalingam uncle took the defacto-complainant to the ATP office to have one vehicle but was told there that the vehicle was not there and after that they tried to inform the police over telephone from ATP factory but they could not get the line of the Hutbay Police Station. Thereafter uncle Kamraj came there with his bicycle and brought her to Police Station in that cycle to report the matter and at the Police Station she reported the incident as above. ( 8 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid FIR Hutbay PS case No. 46 of 1998 was started and the Investigating Officer of this case after investigation submitted chargesheet against the accused appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 9 ) IN course of trial before the learned Sessions Judge, the charge was framed against the accused appellant Lakhi Ram Gawala under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 10 ) IN course of trial, the prosecution has examined in all 15 witnesses and besides examining the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution also produced some documentary evidence. But from the side of the defence no witness was examined however. ( 11 ) THE learned Sessions Judge after examining the aforesaid witnesses and after hearing the arguments of the parties disposed of the Sessions trial by holding that the accused/appellant was guilty of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted him thereunder and the learned Sessions Judge also awarded sentence of imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months to this accused/appellant. ( 12 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the present appeal has been preferred by the convict/appellant alleging that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider that the convict/appellant was a psychiatric patient and being in frenzy state of mind such incident might have caused and as such in any event the convict/appellant cannot be held to be guilty of committing the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 13 ) WE have heard the learned advocate Mr. A. K. Ray for the convict/appellant at length and also Mr. ( 13 ) WE have heard the learned advocate Mr. A. K. Ray for the convict/appellant at length and also Mr. R. S. Saroop, learned Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent at length. Both of them have taken us through the evidence on record and other available materials. ( 14 ) AT the very out set, Mr. A. K. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the convict/appellant has submitted before us that although there is some amount of direct evidence adduced by PW 1 Smt. Lalita Kumari and PW 2 Vishnu Ram against this convict/appellant who is none but their father, yet, from the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, no motive has been ascribed against the present convict/appellant for committing the murder of his wife and it may be that the convict appellant being in frenzy state of mind has committed this sort of offence but even in such a situation he cannot be held to be guilty of committing an offence of under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and at best it may be termed as culpable homicide not amounting to murder and in that the learned Sessions Judge, Aandn Islands, Port Blair was not at all justified in convicting the present accused/appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and at best the convict/appellant could have been convicted under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code treating the incident in question as an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in as much as in this case from the side of prosecution it could not at all be established that this accused/appellant hatched up a plan for eliminating his wife or that accused/appellant committed this act being actuated by clear motive. ( 15 ) MR. R. S. Saroop, learned Public Prosecutor in opposing the aforesaid claim has drawn our attention to the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 who are none but the daughter and son respectively of the present accused/appellant and with reference to the above evidence it has been submitted by him that there is really overwhelming evidence against the present convict/appellant and the other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution in-course of their evidence have also corroborated the incident in question in material particulars from which it could be held clearly that this accused/appellant was guilty for committing an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 16 ) IT has further been contended by him that a proof of existence of a motive is not necessary for a conviction for any offence but where the motive is proved, it is evidence of the evil intent and is also relevant to show that the person who has motive to commit a crime actually committed it, although such evidence alone would not ordinarily be sufficient. He has further contended that normally there is a motive behind every crime and that is why the investigating agency as well as the Courts while examining the complicity of the accused try to ascertain as to what was the motive on the part of the accused for committing the crime in question but where the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts on the basis of the materials produced before the Court, the motive looses its importance. ( 17 ) HERE in this case drawing our attention to the evidence on record it has been submitted by him that from the evidence on record it has come out clearly that the accused/appellant being husband of the victim harboured suspicion against her and it has also come out from the evidence on record that he used to make complain and even scolded his wife being suspicious about her character and chastity and ultimately that might have infuriated him to cause murder of his wife. ( 18 ) MR. R. S. Saroop has further pointed out that there is no iota evidence to show that the convict/appellant before committing the aforesaid crime behaved abnormally or there was any sudden change in his attitude even on 8th September, 1998 when he charged his wife about her late coming and about receiving report from others regarding her chastity and he has further pointed that although before this High Court such a new plea has been taken by the accused appellant that at that relevant point of time the accused appellant was in frenzy mood for which such incident might have happened, but no such suggestion was thrown to the witnesses during the course of trial and in course of examination of prosecution witnesses. Nor the defence has adduced any evidence during trial to substantiate the above contention, as raised by them before this appellate Court. Nor the defence has adduced any evidence during trial to substantiate the above contention, as raised by them before this appellate Court. ( 19 ) IN this connection he has further contended before us that there is also nothing on record to show and suggest that there was some sort or provocation against his own son and daughter for telling his against the father for any reason whatsoever and there is also no earthly reason to discard the evidence of these two witnesses at least (PW 1 and PW 2) who with utmost confidence have deposed before the Trial Judge regarding involvement of their father in committing the aforesaid crime against their mother even at the risk of being put to an orphanage as they have none in this world to look after their affairs excepting their father. ( 20 ) HE has further submitted that scrutiny of the material on record has further confirmed that the evidence of these two witnesses have also been corroborated by other witnesses who came there either after incident or were reported about the incident by those two witnesses immediately after the occurrence and the aforesaid evidence coupled with the medical evidence unequivocally suggest that it was this convict/appellant and none else who has committed this heinous offence against his wife for the purpose of eliminating her from this world since he had strong suspicion against her regarding her chastity and that alone is sufficient enough to conclude as immediate cause which led this accused/appellant to cause injuries on the head of his helpless wife in a cool and calculated without being provoked by sudden provocation. ( 21 ) WE have also gone through the evidence on record with meticulous care and upon perusal of the aforesaid evidence specially the evidence of PW 1 Smt. Lalita Kumari and PW 2 Vishnu Ram and evidence of other witnesses namely PW 3 U. Kamraj, PW 5 Smt. Profulla Lakra and PW 7 Amirthalingam to whom the incident was reported by PW 1 and PW 2 immediately after the occurrence we find that the prosecution allegation against this convict appellant has amply been substantiated and the above evidences coupled with the evidence of PW 14 Dr. Navin Govind, Autopsy Surgeon and the circumstances, appearing from the evidence of PW 11 Rupna Pradhan and PW 13 Ramsai Ram that immediately after the alleged occurrence the convict/appellant fled from the house and was away from the house leaving his minor children in an uncared state till he was subsequently traced out on 13th September, 1998 go to suggest clearly that the present convict/appellant was involved in the offence in question in eliminating his wife by committing the heinous act of assaulting her with an axe when she was engaged in her house in performing the household duties. ( 22 ) SO bring in agreement with the contention of Mr. Saroop, the learned Public Prosecutor we also hold that since in this case the prosecution has been successful in proving beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt, the guilt of the present accused/appellant, the motive looses its importance in particular. ( 23 ) IT is also our general knowledge and common experience that the different person reacts differently under given circumstances and it is also difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule as to how and in what manner a person would react and to achieve his motive could go to what extent in the commission of crime under a particular circumstances. It is not possible to measure up the extent of his feelings, sentiments and desire and say as to what compelled him to commit a particular crime. ( 24 ) THERE may be persons who under frustration and on mere trifling domestic matters take decision to commit a serious crime, while others may approach it with cool and calm mind and think more dispassionately before taking any hazardous and serious steps. It all depends as to how a person reacts in a given circumstance and it is he alone who best knows his intention and motive to commit a crime and the extent thereof. True it is sometime motive plays an important role and becomes compelling force to commit a crime and therefore motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced. A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act but with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act but with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. In a case where there is a clear proof of motive for the commission of the crime it affords added support to the finding of the Court that the accused was guilty of the offence charged with. But the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime. So, the existence of motive is not sine qua non for the success of the prosecution case and here in this case particularly when the prosecution by examining reliable and trustworthy witnesses have proved beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt the guilt of the accused, the motive looses its significance in this case. ( 25 ) THAT being the position, we are rather satisfied to hold that there is nothing on record to suggest that at that point of time this convict/appellant was in frenzy mood so as to hold that the incident in question was an act of 'motiveless malignity' on the part of this convict/appellant and to hold therefore that it was culpable homicide not amounting to murder. So, we find no merit in the contention of the learned advocate appearing for the convict appellant. ( 26 ) SO, upon ultimate analysis of the evidence and materials on record and giving due weightage to submissions made by the learned advocates of the respective parties and looking into the impugned judgment of the learned trial Judge, we are rather satisfied to hold that the learned Sessions Judge upon discussions of evidence and materials on record has rightly convicted this accused/appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and we also find no cogent reason whatsoever to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge against this accused appellant. In the result, we find no merit in the appeal and accordingly the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aandn Islands, Port Blair are accordingly affirmed. In the result, we find no merit in the appeal and accordingly the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aandn Islands, Port Blair are accordingly affirmed. The appeal therefore, fails and accordingly is dismissed. Sent down the lower case records at once to the learned trial Court along with the copy of this judgment forthwith. D. P. Kundu, J.- I agree. Appeal dismissed