Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 936 (PNJ)

Rajiv Kumar @ Raju v. State Of Punjab

2002-09-18

HEMANT GUPTA, R.L.ANAND

body2002
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. Present appeal has been filed by Rajiv Kumar alias Raju against the judgment dated 4.5.1998 convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment for an offence under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case was set in motion on the statement of Kashmiri Lal Makkar. The present appellant is his nephew i.e his elder brothers son. Kashmiri Lal complainant has alleged that he is running a shop of doctor at Basti Kamboan and he has two children namely Dhiraj Kumar alias Monti aged about 11 years and daughter Yashika aged about 5-1/2 years. On 22.4.1995, his son Dhiraj Kumar was lost at about 1 p.m. He inquired and searched till evening but when he could not be found, an information was given at about 7 p.m. All the family members were searching for the missing boy but he could not be found anywhere. It was only on 26.4.1995 at about 7.30 p.m. when his friend Harish Kumar resident of Ferozepur came to him and told that on 22.4.1995 he had seen his nephew Raju son of Kulwant Rai and Balbir Singh alias Giani taking his son towards Mallanwala sitting in between them on Chetak scooter having grey colour. Since Harish Kumar had gone to Chandigarh and therefore, he narrated this incident on coming back on that day. The complainant has further stated that on 3.5.1995 there was marriage of Anita sister of Raju and they demanded Rs. 50,000/- from him but he refused to oblige. Such refusal bore grudge in their mind and for taking revenge they have kidnapped his son Dhiraj Kumar with the intention to kill him. A rukka on the basis of the said sent was sent by Station House Officer at 8.40 p.m. and First Information Report was recorded at 9.50 p.m. The accused was arrested on 27.4.1995. The accused made a disclosure statement Ex. PK dated 27.4.1995 that Dhiraj Kumar was kidnapped by them and was pushed in the Canal Rajasthan Feeder near village Jhamke after tying two dumb bells with one leg, who had drowned in our presence and he can point out that place. In pursuance of such disclosure statement memo Ex.PL regarding pointing of place was prepared and vide memo Ex.PM the dead body of Dhiraj Kumar was recovered. In pursuance of such disclosure statement memo Ex.PL regarding pointing of place was prepared and vide memo Ex.PM the dead body of Dhiraj Kumar was recovered. The investigations also included P.W. 10 Ashok Kumar Municipal Commissioner before whom accused Raju is purported to have made extra judicial confession. 3. On the completion of the investigation the police submitted a report on 14.7.1995 under section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure. During committal proceedings on 10.8.1995 accused Rajiv stated that he wants to make a statement. Learned trial Magistrate recorded the following order: "Present : A.P.P. for the State. Both accused in custody. Accused Rajiv wants to make a statement. Let his statement be recorded separately. 10.8.95 Sd/- CJM, Ferozepur Sd/- Rajiv Present : A.P.P. for the State. Both accused in custody. Statement of Rajiv Kumar alias Raju has been recorded separately and before recording his statement he was made to understand that his statement can be used against him. Copies supplied to the accused are stated to be complete in all respects. Since the offence under sections 302/364 of the Penal Code are exclusively triable by the court of Session, so vide my separate order of today the accused are committed to the court of Ld. Sessions Judge, Ferozepur for trial. The accused are in custody and they be produced there on 23.8.1995 at 10 A.M. Ahlmad is directed to send the file to that court well before the date fixed. Announced in open court. Sd/- Chief Judicial Magistrate Ferozepur". Dated 10.8.1995. 4. Separate statement of the accused Ex. PX recorded by the learned magistrate when translated reads as under : Statement of Rajiv @ Raju son of Kulwant Rai son of Mulakh Raj aged about 18 years work as cassettes merchants resident of Mohalla Sodhianwala, Ferozepur City, w/o A case under sections 302/364/120-B IPC is pending against me. I have not stated the name of any one before the police. I have stated before the police that whatsoever has been done by me has been done by me alone. I have not stated name of Balbir Singh, but the police has falsely implicated Balbir Singh. No other person has taken any part in this murder. Whatsoever has been done by me has been done alone. I have made this statement in the court without any pressure. RO & AC Sd/- Gurdev Chand Chief Judicial Magistrate Ferozepur. 10.8.95 Sd/- Rajiv 5. No other person has taken any part in this murder. Whatsoever has been done by me has been done alone. I have made this statement in the court without any pressure. RO & AC Sd/- Gurdev Chand Chief Judicial Magistrate Ferozepur. 10.8.95 Sd/- Rajiv 5. With these findings, the case was committed to Court of Session. 6. During trial, the prosecution examined number of witnesses, particularly P.W.8 Kashmiri Lal Kakkar, P.W. 9 Harish Kumar, P.W.10 Ashok Kumar, P.W. 16 Gurdev Chand, CJM, Ferozepur, and P.W. 7 Sanjiv Luthra. After the close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused Rajiv Kumar under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein some of the relevant questions and answers given by the accused are reproduced as under : Q. It is also in evidence against you that on 26.4.1995 Harish Kumar friend of Kashmiri Lal informed him that he had seen his son alongwith you and your co- accused Balbir Singh Giani on 22.4.1995 at about 1.30 PM while you were going towards Mallanwala on a Bajaj Chetak scooter of sky colour. What have you to say ? Ans. I was alone on own scooter LML Vespa alongwith Deeraj @ Montu. Q. It is also in evidence against you that on 10.8.1995 you made statement before Mr. Gurdev Chand, the then C.J.M., Ferozepur that you alone were responsible for the murder. What have you to say ? Ans. It is correct. Q. Have you anything else to say ? Ans. I have committed the murder. I was alone responsible for committing the crime. Balbir Singh was not with me. I confess my guilt. There was no prior enmity between me and the family of Kashmiri Lal. I have committed the murder in ignorance and I am repenting for the same. 7. The learned trial court on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution convicted the appellant for an offence under section 302 IPC as well as for an offence under section 201 IPC holding that in view of the statement Ex.PX made by the accused Rajiv alias Raju before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, the extra-judicial confession made before Ashok Kumar, P.W. 10 loses its importance. The court also held that in the statement of accused recorded under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure he has not named Balbir Singh, therefore, the statement of accused Rajiv Kumar made before P.W. 10 cannot be made the basis of conviction of accused Balbir Singh. However, the learned trial court did not believe the prosecution story propounded by Harish Kuar being last seen in the company of accused Rajiv Kumar and Balbir Singh. After considering the other evidence on record the learned trial court gave benefit of doubt to accused Balbir Singh and acquitted him. However, learned trial court convicted the present appellant on the basis of statement made before Chief Judicial Magistrate on 10.8.1995 as well as from the statement recorded under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court also took into consideration the recovery of dead body in pursuance of disclosure statement of the accused made under section 27 of the Evidence Act and therefore, held that accused Rajiv is guilty of an offence under section 302 IPC. After convicting the appellant, the learned trial court heard the accused on the quantum of sentence. He has not made any statement but he verbally stated that he has admitted his guilt and is repenting for his act. The learned trial court sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for life for an offence under section 302 IPC. 8. We have heard Shri A.S. Kalsi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.S. Randhawa, Deputy Advocate General Punjab for the State and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. 9. The primary argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the statement of accused recorded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 10.8.1995 does not conform to the requirements of Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure and thus is inadmissible in evidence. The trial court was not justified in law in basing conviction on such statement. The counsel for the appellant relied upon Preetam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1997(1) RCR 304 and Saroj v. State of Kerala, 1998 Supreme Court Cases 85 in support of his contention. The other argument of the counsel for the appellant is that the statement of the accused under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure again cannot form basis for conviction of an accused. The prosecution must prove its case and stand on its own legs. The other argument of the counsel for the appellant is that the statement of the accused under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure again cannot form basis for conviction of an accused. The prosecution must prove its case and stand on its own legs. The statement of the accused can be looked into for the propose of aiding the case otherwise proved by prosecution and not that the conviction cannot be based on the basis of statement of an accused as such statement is not made on oath and in support of such argument, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon Sewa Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1997(2) RCR(Crl.) 68 (P&H) : 1997(3) RCC 472. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for State submitted that the statement recorded by Chief Judicial Magistrate substantially covers the requirement of section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure in as much as the Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction that the statement is being made voluntarily by the accused and that such statement can be used against the accused. Therefore, it was submitted that requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure have been complied with by the learned Magistrate. As regards the requirement of sub-section (4) of Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure of recording a memorandum at the foot of such statement that it is only an irregularity which has not prejudiced the accused and therefore, will not vitiate the evidentiary value of the statement recorded under section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure when sufficient has been read over to the accused and he has accepted it to be correct by putting his signatures as well. It was further argued by the State Counsel that even if such statement is not admissible as a statement under section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, it would be admissible as an extra-judicial confession under section 24 of the Evidence Act. 11. It was submitted by the counsel for the State that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant by adducing evidence of last seen as deposed by Harish Kumar P.W.9, extra-judicial confession made to Ashok Kumar P.W. 10, statement recorded by Shri Gurdev Chand CJM, Ferozepur P.W. 16, and motive by Kashmiri Lal Kakkar, P.W.8. 11. It was submitted by the counsel for the State that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant by adducing evidence of last seen as deposed by Harish Kumar P.W.9, extra-judicial confession made to Ashok Kumar P.W. 10, statement recorded by Shri Gurdev Chand CJM, Ferozepur P.W. 16, and motive by Kashmiri Lal Kakkar, P.W.8. It was submitted that the statement of accused recorded under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is sought to be used as an aid to prove the prosecution case and is not the sole evidence on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking the conviction of the appellant. 12. There is no dispute to the proposition that the statement of an accused under section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure has to be strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. However, in the present case, the prosecution has not relied upon such statement in its report under section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure. Rather the accused offered to make such statement at the stage of commitment of the case to the court of Session. The accused has not disputed such statement at any subsequent stage of proceedings and rather admitted the same to be correct in his statement under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. Even at the time of sentence, the accused has admitted his guilt. The interim order recorded by the court shows that he was made to understand that his statement can be used against him. The accused has clearly stated in his statement that this statement is without any pressure. Even otherwise, the accused was in judicial custody since long and there could not be any prompting by the police at that stage to make a statement. Learned Magistrate has appeared as P.W. 16 and stated that accused made a statement without any pressure of police and has made such statement voluntarily. He was also made to understand that this statement could be used against him. Therefore, there was compliance of sub-section (2) of Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. In fact, Section 463 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the court to admit such confession or other statement of an accused person recorded or purported to be recorded under section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure in evidence even though the provisions of such section are not complied with by the Magistrate while recording such statement. 13. In fact, Section 463 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the court to admit such confession or other statement of an accused person recorded or purported to be recorded under section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure in evidence even though the provisions of such section are not complied with by the Magistrate while recording such statement. Section 463 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under: "463. Non-compliance with provisions of Sec. 164 or Sec. 281. - (1) If any Court before which a confession or other statement of an accused person recorded, or purporting to be recorded under Sec. 164 or Sec. 281, is tendered, or has been received, in evidence finds that any of the provisions of either of such sections have not been complied with by the Magistrate recording the statement it may, notwithstanding anything contained in Sec. 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), take evidence in regard to such non-compliance, and may, if satisfied that such non-compliance has not injured the accused in his defence on the merits and that he duly made the statement recorded, admit such statement. (2) The provision of this section apply to Courts of appeal, reference and revision. 14. Honble Supreme Court in Kehar Singh and others v. The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1883, has held that compliance of sub-section (2) of Section 164 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and imperative and non-compliance of it renders the confession inadmissible in evidence. However, if the questions and answers regarding the confession have not been recorded, the evidence can be adduced to prove that in fact the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 164 Cr.P.C. have been complied with. Mere omission to record the same in the appropriate form may not render it inadmissible in evidence. The findings of the Honble Supreme Court reads as under : "117. On a consideration of the above decisions it is manifest that if the provisions of S. 164(2) which require that the Magistrate before recording confession shall explain to the person making confession that he is not bound to make a confession and if he does so it may be used as evidence against him and upon questioning the person if the Magistrate has reasons to believe that it is being made voluntarily then the confession will be recorded by the Magistrate. The compliance of the sub-sec. The compliance of the sub-sec. (2) of S. 164 is therefore, mandatory and imperative and non-compliance of it renders the confession inadmissible in evidence. Section 463 (old Section 533) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that where the questions and answers regarding evidence can be adduced to prove that in fact the requirements of sub-sec. (2) of S. 164 read with S. 281 have been complied with. (Emphasis supplied). If the Court comes to a finding, that such a compliance had in fact been made the mere omission to record the same in the proper form will not render it inadmissible evidence and the defect is cured under S. 463 (S. 533 of the old Criminal Procedure (Code) but when there is non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of S. 164(2) Criminal Procedure Code and it comes out in evidence that no such explanation as envisaged in the aforesaid sub-section has been given to the accused by the Magistrate, this substantial defect cannot be cured under S. 463 Criminal Procedure Code." 15. The other argument that the memorandum at the foot of such statement as contemplated under sub-section (4) of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been recorded by the Magistrate is, of course, correct. However, the fact remains that the statement was read over and accepted to be correct by the accused and in evidence thereof he has appended his signatures. Honble Supreme Court in Tulsi Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(6) Supreme Court Cases 63 has held that the memorandum at the foot of the note is not conclusive to hold that the provisions of section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been complied with. Therefore, taking a converse proposition if the requirements of section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are otherwise complied with, then the mere fact that the memorandum has not been recorded will not make such statement as inadmissible. 16. Therefore, mere fact that the memorandum at the foot of the statement had not been recorded by the learned Magistrate, it will not make such statement of the accused as inadmissible in evidence as such non-compliance has not injured the accused in his defence on merits and especially when he admits having made such statement in a question under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. The requirements of note of memorandum having complied with are otherwise borne out from the record and absence of such memo would be an irregularity curable under section 463 Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, we are of the opinion that such statement is admissible in evidence. 17. However, we agree with the counsel for the appellant that the statement of accused admitting the commission of offence in his statement under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made the sole basis of conviction. Such statement can be taken into consideration for the purpose of aiding the prosecution case which is otherwise proved by the prosecution relying upon the judgment of this court in Sewa Singhs case (supra). 18. We are unable to agree with the argument of the counsel for the State that if the statement dated 10.8.1995 is not admissible in evidence then it should be considered as an extra judicial confession. Honble Supreme Court in Dhananjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1512 : 2001(2) RCR (Crl) 196, has held that if a statement purported to be made recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. is not admissible in evidence, the same is not admissible even as extra-judicial confession. However, such question is not relevant as per out findings supra. The Honble Supreme Court held as under : "We examined the matter with a different angle as well as by considering to see the admissibility of said confessional statement not as a judicial confession but as extra judicial confession made to PW 50. We found it difficult to treat Exhibit P77 as extra judicial confession of A4 made by the PW 50. Confessions in criminal law have been categorised to be either judicial or extra judicial. The prosecution is obliged to refer and rely on the alleged confession of the accused in any one of the aforesaid categories. As extra judicial confession cannot be treated as judicial confession, similarly an alleged judicial confession proved to have not been legally recorded cannot be used as extra judicial confession. Otherwise also such an approach would result in dragging the judicial officers into uncalled for and unnecessary controversies. In Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) : (1936) (37) Cri. L.J. 897), it was observed, which we approve, that: "............ Otherwise also such an approach would result in dragging the judicial officers into uncalled for and unnecessary controversies. In Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) : (1936) (37) Cri. L.J. 897), it was observed, which we approve, that: "............ It would be particularly unfortunate if Magistrate were asked at all generally to act rather as police officers than as judicial persons, to be by reason of their position freed from the disability that attaches to police officers under S. 162 of the Code; and to be at the same time freed, notwithstanding their position as Magistrate, from any obligation to make records under S. 164. In the result they would indeed be relegated to the position of ordinary citizens as witnesses and then would be required to depose to matters transacted by them in their official capacity unregulated by any statutory rules of procedure or conduct whatever." 19. Now the question which arises is whether the prosecution has proved the commission of offence by the appellant by other evidence. The prosecution basically relied upon the motive to commit crime, evidence of last seen, disclosure statement in pursuance of which the dead body was recovered as well as extra judicial confession made to P.W. 10 Ashok Kumar. The prosecution has also relied upon the statement dated 10.8.1995 Ex. PX to prove the commission of an offence by the appellant as such the statement has not been disputed by the accused at any stage of proceedings. 20. Stage is now set to discuss the prosecution case independently of statement Ex. PX dated 10.8.1995 and the statement made by the accused under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution in order to prove the story of last seen has produced P.W. 9 Harish Kumar. The learned trial court found the statement of the witness as unbelievable for the reason that in the month of April returning from a walk at 1/1.30 p.m. was not found believable. Learned trial court has not appreciated the statement of the witness in its entirety. Except the first line of examination-in-chief, there is no reference to walk throughout the evidence and in fact the witness has stated that he was on a scooter. The relevant lines from the evidence of his statement reads as under : "On 22.4.1995 I was returning from Shaheed Bhagat Singh Colony after walk towards the city Ferozepur. Except the first line of examination-in-chief, there is no reference to walk throughout the evidence and in fact the witness has stated that he was on a scooter. The relevant lines from the evidence of his statement reads as under : "On 22.4.1995 I was returning from Shaheed Bhagat Singh Colony after walk towards the city Ferozepur. When I reached near the Professor colony, where I saw Rajiv Kumar alias Raju driving a scooter and on the pillion seat Balbir Singh alias Giani was sitting. Between the two Dhiraj Kumar deceased was sitting. They were going towards Mallanwala side. The time was about 1 or 1.30 PM. All the three were known to me. After that I went to Chandigarh and returned to Ferozepur on 26.4.1995. I came to know that son of Dr. Kashmiri Lal Kakkar is missing since 22.4.1995. On the day when I saw the accused alongwith the deceased I had not suspected any foul play as the deceased and accused are the collateral. On 26.4.1995 I went to the house of the Dr. Kakkar and informed him that I had seen the accused alongwith the deceased on 22.4.1995. My statement was recorded by the police. xx xx xx xx by Mr. A.S. Giani. I own a scooter, but at the time of occurrence I was not owning scooter. But I was on a scooter of my friend, when I saw the accused along with the accused. xx xx xx xx I do not know the place of birth of accused Balbir Singh and also do not know where he had been studying. I was with a slow speed of the scooter. Same is the case of the accused. My statement was recorded at the house of Dr. Kashmiri Lal." 21. It is, thus, apparent that the accused was on a scooter at 1/1.30 p.m. and thus, the entire basis of not relying on his statement is not made out. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the findings recorded by the trial court that the witness is not believable. The witness is known to the complainant. The accused is not a stranger to the complainant but his real nephew. The complainant as well as the accused are living in the same house accused on the ground floor of the house and the complainant on the first floor of the house. The witness is known to the complainant. The accused is not a stranger to the complainant but his real nephew. The complainant as well as the accused are living in the same house accused on the ground floor of the house and the complainant on the first floor of the house. Therefore it is but natural for the witness to identify accused as well as the minor child Dhiraj. 22. The dead body of Dhiraj was recovered in pursuance of disclosure statement made by accused on 27.4.1995. Such disclosure statement was witnessed by P.W.10 Ashok Kumar as well as Balkar Singh P.W.11. In pursuance of such disclosure statement dead body was recovered and memo Ex. PM prepared. Such memo was witnessed by Balkar Singh P.W.11 and Vijay Photograph P.W.6. P.W. 10 Ashok Kumar is the Municipal Commissioner of Ferozepur City and known to accused. The recovery of dead body in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the accused is a strong incriminating evidence and a circumstance towards the proof of the guilt of the appellant. 23. P.W.10 Ashok Kumar has also been produced as a witness to prove the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before him. He has stated that on 27.4.1995, accused Rajiv came to him and made a statement that he alongwith his friend Balbir Singh kidnapped the son of his uncle namely Dhiraj and took him towards canal Rajasthan Feeder in the area of village Jhamke and threw him in a Canal after tying 2 dumb-bells with one leg and in their sight, he drowned. The witness further states that accused Rajiv disclosed to him that one month prior to throwing of the deceased Dhiraj in the canal, there was marriage of his sister and they demanded Rs. 50,000/- from the father of the deceased, but he refused to give the amount. During cross examination, the witness has stated that the accused family has supported him in his election and that he has not produced any other accused before the police except Rajiv Kumar. His house is opposite to the Fire-wood shop of the accused. It is further stated by him that murder of son of Dr. Kashmiri Lal came to his notice when Rajiv came to him and made statement. His house is opposite to the Fire-wood shop of the accused. It is further stated by him that murder of son of Dr. Kashmiri Lal came to his notice when Rajiv came to him and made statement. There is nothing in the testimony of P.W. 10 Ashok Kumar so as to throw doubt on the veracity on the statement or the credibility of the witness. The witness is trustworthy and the statement made by him inspires confidence. He has no motive to depose against the accused. Rather accused family has supported him in election but still he is deposing against the appellant. Even the learned trial court has not doubted the extra judicial confession made by accused before P.W.10 Ashok Kumar but it has been stated the "in view of the statement made by the accused before Chief Judicial Magistrate, statement loses it importance. In our opinion, the extra-judicial confession made before Ashok Kumar P.W. 10 is one of the circumstances which is required to be taken into consideration while appreciating the case of the prosecution. 24. Apart from this, statement of P.W.8 Kashmiri Lal Kakkar father of Dhiraj Kumar gives out the motive of commission of crime by the accused. It has been stated that on 3.4.1995 i.e. few days before the incident of kidnapping there was marriage of sister of Rajiv i.e. niece of Kashmiri Lal Kakkar. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was demanded but he has not given that amount which according to the witness made the accused bore a grudge against them. Such is the statement of P.W.10 Ashok Kumar as well. Therefore, it is established that accused Rajiv Kumar bore a grudge against his uncle Kashmiri Lal for refusing to give at sum of Rs. 50,000/- at the time of the marriage of his sister. 25. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove sequence of events leading to commission of crime by the accused. The accused was last seen by P.W. 9 Harish Kumar in the company of deceased. Subsequently, at his instance dead body had been recovered as well as he has made extra judicial confession to P.W. 10 Ashok Kumar. Statements of P.W.8 Kashmiri Lal Kakkar and P.W.10 Ashok Kumar disclose motive on the part of the accused to commit crime. The accused was last seen by P.W. 9 Harish Kumar in the company of deceased. Subsequently, at his instance dead body had been recovered as well as he has made extra judicial confession to P.W. 10 Ashok Kumar. Statements of P.W.8 Kashmiri Lal Kakkar and P.W.10 Ashok Kumar disclose motive on the part of the accused to commit crime. Therefore, on the basis of such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In addition to such proof, the prosecution has also relied upon the statement Ex. PX dated 10.8.1995 as well as his statement Ex.PX dated 10.8.1995 as well as his statement before the court under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure ibid also aid the prosecution case of the proof of guilt of the accused. 26. In view of above discussion and the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the commission of offence under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial court is hereby affirmed. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.