Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. Bur Singh and his two sons namely Kulwinder Singh and Parminder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the accused) were charged under Section 302/120-B read with Section 34 IPC for committing murder of Surjan Singh on 6.10.1999 in the area of village Marrianwala, Police Station Sadar Batala. Consequently, they were convicted vide judgment dated 1.2.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur and sentenced as under :- Bur Singh U/s 302 IPC To undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months., Kulwinder Singh and Parminder Singh U/s 302/34 IPC To undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. 2 On 5.10.1999, Bur Singh had given beatings to the son of Manjit Singh for passing through their fields to which Surjan Singh had objected, therefore, the accused were annoyed and challenged to teach him a lesson. 3. On 6.10.1999, at about 6.00 AM, Sukhraj Singh- complainant (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) along with his father Surjan Singh was going towards his well to milch the cattle. Surjan Singh was ahead of the complainant. When they reached near the field of Hazara Singh, the accused came there. Bur Singh raised lalkara that they be caught and taught a lesson for showing sympathy with the public. Kulwinder Singh accused inflicted a datar blow on the right arm of Surjan Singh, Bur Singh inflicted him sua blow on his right temporal region, resultantly, he fell down. Thereafter Parminder Singh accused inflicted dang blow to him on his shoulders. Thus, all the accused inflicted more blows to him with their respective weapons. The hue and cry raised by Sukhraj Singh attracted Jasbir Singh and Kulbir Singh to the spot. At this, the accused fled away with their respective weapons. Surjan Singh succumbed to the injuries at the spot. 4. After leaving Jasbir Singh and Kulbir Singh near the dead body, the complainant went to the police station, but ASI Lakhbir Singh met him at Aliwal Chowk to whom he got recorded his statement Ex.PD, which was completed at 7.30 AM, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PD/2 was registered at 8.30 AM. The distance of the Police Station Sadar, Batala is 4 kms from the place of occurrence. The distance of the Police Station Sadar, Batala is 4 kms from the place of occurrence. The FIR was received by the Illaqa Magistrate at 9.00 AM. ASI Lakhbir Singh visited the place of occurrence; prepared the rough site plan; lifted blood stained earth from the spot; took into possession one shoe of plastic; got conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased; and took the clothes of the deceased into possession. Accused Bur Singh was arrested on 11.10.1999 and he got recovered dang fitted with sua under the chaff in his residential house and Kulwinder Singh accused got recovered dater from underneath the heap of chaff lying in his verandah in pursuance of their disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. On 28.10.1999, Parminder Singh accused was arrested by Inspector Lakhbir Singh CIA Staff, Batala. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 5. Initially, Parminder Singh accused was declared innocent and was placed in column No.2 of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., however, on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. accused Parminder Singh was also summoned. Similarly, on the private complaint in which ASI Lakhbir Singh was also impleaded as accused and was summoned to face trial along with other accused. 6. All the accused were charged under Sections 302/120-B read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Dr. Harbhajan Singh (PW1), Sukhraj Singh (PW2), Jasbir Singh (PW3), Navtej Pal Singh, Patwari (PW4), Arvin Kumar (PW5), HC Jaswinder Singh (PW6), MHC Sardul Singh (PW7), Kuldeep Singh (PW8), DSP Balbir Singh (PW9), Gurmej Singh (PW10), ASI Lakhbir Singh (PW11) and SI/SHO Naresh Kumar (PW12). 8. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in this case. Accused Parminder Singh further added that he was studying at Guru Godbind Singh College, Chandigarh and was not present in the village on the day of occurrence. 9. In defence, the accused examined SDO Lakbir Singh (DW1), Peeter (DW2), Surinder Singh (DW3) and Rachhpal Singh Patwari (DW4). 10. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. Hence this appeal. 11. We have heard Mr. Sukhbir Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. S.S. Bhinder, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, Mr. 9. In defence, the accused examined SDO Lakbir Singh (DW1), Peeter (DW2), Surinder Singh (DW3) and Rachhpal Singh Patwari (DW4). 10. Ultimately the trial ended in conviction. Hence this appeal. 11. We have heard Mr. Sukhbir Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. S.S. Bhinder, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the records with their able assistance. 12. Among the other contentions, the prime argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the motive behind the occurrence does not stand established. No offence could be committed without any motive. While delineating over the argument, the same does not weigh with us. The prosecution witnesses namely Sukhraj Singh (PW2) and Jasbir Singh (PW3) consistently testify that one day prior to the occurrence, Bur Singh had thrashed son of Manjit Singh preventing him from passing through their land which was objected by Surjan Singh, therefore, Bur Singh felt annoyed and caused injuries to him. Had it not been correct, this fact could be rebutted by the accused by examining Manjit Singh or his son. Thus, it would be suffice to say that Bur Singh having taken ill of the earlier occurrence, which took place on 5.10.1999, wanted to have revenge. Nevertheless, the law is now well settled that motive lies hidden in the heart of the accused, which is difficult to explore. Some times the occurrence takes place for little or no motives, but motive is not a necessary ingredient which may disprove the commission of the crime; it only lends corroboration to the prosecution version, as such when the occurrence is established by cogent and convincing evidence in the shape of ocular as well as medical evidence, then the motive pales into insignificance. 13. As regards the presence of Jasbir Singh and the complainant, the later being the son of the deceased was living with his father. It is a matter of common experience that the people in the villages go out of their houses to milch the cattle in the wee hours of the day. The complainant being the inmate of the house having gone along with his father, in all human probabilities, was present in the house and had accompanied his father when they were going to milch the cattle. The complainant being the inmate of the house having gone along with his father, in all human probabilities, was present in the house and had accompanied his father when they were going to milch the cattle. The scorching cross examination upon this witness could not derive us, in such a situation that his presence could be doubted. 14. The other plea that the complainant was serving in insurance company as Development Officer and was posted at Gurdaspur and was not present in the house at that hour also is without merit. The place of occurrence i.e. native village of the complainant was in same district i.e. Gurdaspur. It is not the case where the occurrence took place during the duty hours. But it was only 6.00 AM when the occurrence took place, therefore, the distance of 50 kms could be covered by the complainant to reach his office in time from his village. No official from the Insurance Company came forward to rebut the presence of the complainant in his village. If the complainant was claiming house rent without staying at Gurdaspur, then the same was question of controversy between the insurance company and its employee, however, the same is hardly a circumstance to doubt the presence of complainant in his native village at the time of occurrence. 15. As regards the presence of Jasbir Singh (PW3), his residence is at a distance 1-1/2 acre from the place of occurrence. He is said to have been attracted by the hue and cry raised by the deceased, therefore, his presence also is quite natural and probable at such time when every body wakes up after sleeping in the night. During cross examination he admitted that his clothes were stained with blood and he had shown the same to the police, no finger can be raised about his presence for not taking the blood stained clothes of a witness by the Investigating Officer. We also do not find any weight in the other argument that; had the witnesses been present at the spot, then they would not have gone un-spared by the accused. We also do not find any weight in the other argument that; had the witnesses been present at the spot, then they would not have gone un-spared by the accused. In this regard it would be suffice to say that, at this stage, we can not speculate as to what was in the mind of the accused but apparently, it appears that Bur Singh had attracted annoyance against Surjan Singh and none else, therefore, he being in direct confrontation with the deceased might have made him their target, therefore, the presence of the witnesses cannot be doubted merely on the ground that they were not given any injuries at the hands of the accused. 16. As regards ASI Lakhbir Singh, he has already been acquitted from the case and no appeal has been preferred against him, therefore, we need not to make any comments regarding his acquittal. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants made an abortive bid to prove the innocence of the accused by urging that the story as set up by the prosecution is a manufactured one; the occurrence did not take place at 6.00 AM as alleged by the prosecution but it took place some time late during night as 150 cc of semi digested food was seen in the stomach of the deceased by Dr. Harbhajan Singh (PW1), who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Surjan Sigh. 18. Having delineated over the matter, it is worth mentioning that the people in the villages get up early in the morning, took bath, go for meditation, took some food and then start their daily pursuits. No question was asked to the witnesses as to when the deceased woke up and when he took the meals. Thus, on account of non examination of the witnesses qua this aspect of the case, no inference could be drawn that the deceased could not have taken any food prior to 6.00 AM, rather other factors that Dr.Harbhajan Singh (PW1) who conducted the autopsy found the presence of rigor mortis on the upper limbs, whereas it was partially present on the lower limbs and that autopsy conducted on 6.10.1999 at 1.15 PM indicate that rigor mortis was just in the process of setting and had not completely set over the body. As per medical view point, rigor mortis sets in after 2 hours and spreads all over the body within 12 to 15 hours, therefore, no presumption could be drawn that the occurrence took place prior to 6.00 AM and the presence of 150 CC food in the stomach of the deceased at the time of autopsy is of no consequence and was not of any help to the case of the accused. 19. Though, the FIR is very prompt in this case, yet as an abundant caution being aware of the human probabilities and intention to throw net wider for involving both the sons and a father in the case, we doubt the participation of accused Parminder Singh in the commission of the crime. Before discussing the plea of alibi set up by Parminder Singh, while putting the medical evidence in the four corners of the ocular version and the initial version set up by the complainant in the FIR, false implication of Parminder Singh cannot be ruled out. In the FIR Ex.PD/2 got registered by the complainant Sukhraj Singh (PW2), it was stated that Parminder Singh alias Sonu gave a dang blow while Surjan Singh was lying down, which hit on the back side of his shoulders, then all the three accused gave more blows with their respective weapons which hit his father Surjan Singh right leg, back and arms. While appearing in the witness box as PW-2, he while deviating from his earlier statement made an improvement over the same by stating that Parminder Singh alias Sonu inflicted dang blow on his back side and on the right flank and on the chest but he does not depose that Parminder Singh alias Sonu along with others gave more blows to the deceased, but the medical evidence speaks otherwise. During the course of argument it was urged that injuries No.2 and 4 are attributed to the accused Parminder Singh. These injuries reads as under :- "2. Reddish contusion 10x1-/2 cm on the back of left shoulder joint. On dissection, blood was present in the muscles. Underlying bone was intact. 4. Reddish contusion 8x6 cms in size on the back of right side of chest just along the right posterior axillary fold. These injuries reads as under :- "2. Reddish contusion 10x1-/2 cm on the back of left shoulder joint. On dissection, blood was present in the muscles. Underlying bone was intact. 4. Reddish contusion 8x6 cms in size on the back of right side of chest just along the right posterior axillary fold. On dissection there was present profusion of muscle of rib case, 5th, 6th and 7th ribs of right side of chest were fractured and the fractured ends were embedded in to the right pleura and lung tissue. The thoracic cavity was full of blood." 20. Injury No.1, which is fatal, is attributed to Bur Singh accused. None of the witnesses have stated that if Parminder Singh accused inflicted injury with his stick on the back of the left shoulder of the deceased and that injury No.4 was not stated to have been caused by Parminder Singh as described by Dr. Harbhajan Singh (PW1). Thus, the medical evidence does not fit in with the ocular version. Besides this, Parminder Singh had taken a specific plea that he had been studying in Guru Gobind Singh College, at Chandigarh. He has examined Peeter (DW2), Clerk of the said college, who has certified of his being the student of college and has further deposed that as per attendance register maintained in the mess of the college he was present in the college from 1.10.1999 to 17.10.1999. The register being maintained by the officials of the college in the ordinary course of their official duties cannot be said to have no evidentiary value. The photo copy of the attendance register duly establishes this fact. There was no necessity to produce the class incharge as it stands established from the mess record that Parminder Singh took meals during the period from 1.10.1999 to 17.10.1999 in the hostel. This piece of evidence finds support from the fact that he was declared innocent during investigation by Inspector (Retd.) Surinder Singh (DW3). Thus, possibility of Parminder Singh to be present in the hostel of Shri Guru Gobind Singh College, Chandigarh at the time of occurrence cannot be ruled out. For the forging reasons, we partly accept the appeal, acquit the accused Parminder Singh from the charges framed against him and direct that he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. However, the appeal qua remaining accused stands dismissed.