Judgment H.S.Bhalla, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13-9-1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby he convicted appellant-Joginder Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 , in default thereof, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. A synoptical resume of the prosecution case is as under: A complaint under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was filed by Harbans Singh son of Gurbachan Singh, Jat, resident of Chak Saidoke, Police Station Sadar Jallalabad, tehsil Fazilka against Joginder Singh stating therein that on 18-1-1993 at about 9.00 a.m. complainant, his brother Harjinder Singh alias Inder Singh, Sube Singh son of Partap Singh, Jarnail Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh, Pohla Singh son of Aroor Singh all residents of village Chak Saidoke had gone to the school of the village for the purpose of casting their votes in the Panchayat Election. It has been alleged that at about 9.45 or 10.00 a.m., he and his brother Harjinder Singh made a request to the voters to keep them aside, so that there may not be any dispute in casting their votes for the people, who were already standing in queue to cast their votes. In the meantime, Constable Joginder Singh No. 1421, PC Branch, office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur challenged his brother Harjinder Singh and abused him and subsequently, he fired a shot from his rifle. The shot fired at Harjinder Singh hit on his head and he died at ,the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by the complainant along with Suba Singh son of Partap Singh, Jarnail Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh and Pohla Singh son of Aroor Singh, all residents of village Chak Saidoke. Joginder Singh was stopped not to fire shot, but he did not pay any attention and committed the murder of Harjinder Singh, He lodged a report with Inspector Harbans Lal, who recorded his statement and a case was registered vide FIR No, 5 dated 18-1-1993 under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, but he was not arrested by the police and no action was taken against him notwithstanding the fact that he visited the Police Station on number of times and this necessitated the filing of complaint. 3. 3. The inquest report on the dead body of Harjinder Singh was prepared by Inspector Harbans Lal and he sent the dead body of Harjinder Singh to Civil Hospital, Fazilka, where post-mortem on the dead body of Harjinder Singh was conducted. As per the post-mortem report, cause of death was due to shock and haermorrhage as a result of injuries Nos. 1 and 2, which were on the vital part of the brain and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and the injuries were caused with firearms. 4. During the preliminary evidence, complainant himself stepped into the witness box as PW-1, whereas Sube Singh, Jarnail Singh, Dr. Yashpal, Emergency Medical Officer, Pala Singh and Head Constable Surinder Kant stepped into the witness box as PW-2 to PW-6 respectively. After examining the preliminary evidence on record, the learned trial Court summoned the accused to face trial under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and after completing necessary formalities, he was sent up for trial. 5. Accused was charge-sheeted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Harbans Singh (PW 1) Sube Singh (PW 2), Dr. Yash Pal (PW 3), Harbans Lal, DSP (PW 4) whereas MHC Vinod Kumar and Jarnail Singh PWs were given up being unnecessary and Pohla Singh was given up as having been won over by the accused. 7. The appellant when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded that a false case was registered against him and the FIR, which was registered against him, was cancelled after the inquiry was conducted. He further disclosed that when election started, people who were casting their votes, some suspicious persons encircled the Polling Booth Nos. 1 and 2 and tried to snatch the ballot boxes, as a consequence of which, the situation of law and order became bad to worse. The police party fired in the air to disburse the mob and to save the lives of the people and persons on election duty. He has not killed Harjinder Singh. 1 and 2 and tried to snatch the ballot boxes, as a consequence of which, the situation of law and order became bad to worse. The police party fired in the air to disburse the mob and to save the lives of the people and persons on election duty. He has not killed Harjinder Singh. He also opted to lead his defence evidence and he examined five defence witnesses, namely, Dharamvir Naik (DW 1), Malkiat Singh Naik (DW 2), Joginder Kumar, DSP (DW 3), SI Kulwant Singh (DW 4), Rupinder Pal Singh Bajwa (DW 5), whereas Sher Singh, Sampuran Singh and Jit Singh were given up as having been won over by the prosecution and Constable Mohinder Singh was given up as unnecessary. 8. We have heard the learned Counsel Appearing for the appellant and the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 9. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that no motive has been provided by the prosecution for committing the murder of Harjinder Singh and also the fact that on account of missing of the motive part, the case of the prosecution becomes highly doubtful, is liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection and the appellant is not entitled to acquittal merely on this short ground alone, because we are of the opinion that motive is state of mind of the culprit and this element exclusively remains hidden in it and specially when it sprouts for the commission of offence that cannot be judged precisely. It is neither obligatory nor incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove the motive but if it can provide to the Court for appreciating the evidence, this would be an additional circumstance to prove the chain of the version. Most heinous offences are committed for petty matters and some time for no motive, but the Court cannot sit idle and shift its responsibility to arrive at a particular conclusion as to who is responsible for the commission of offence. In order to conclude with regard to the motive in this case, we would finally like to observe that motive is not a deciding factor in a criminal case and absence of motive does not speak of the innocence of the accused, where direct evidence against the accused is overwhelming. 10. In order to conclude with regard to the motive in this case, we would finally like to observe that motive is not a deciding factor in a criminal case and absence of motive does not speak of the innocence of the accused, where direct evidence against the accused is overwhelming. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has further argued that no reliance can be placed on the statement of Harbans Singh (PW 1), who is an Interested witness since he is the brother of deceased-Harjinder Singh and is always Interested in the success of the case of the prosecution. We have considered this contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, but the same does not cut any ice with us for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 11. It is well settled law that there is no absolute rule that the evidence of a relative or partisan witness should not be believed at all. Simply because the witness is the brother of the deceased, his evidence cannot be discarded on that ground alone, but it should be received with great care, caution and after due scrutiny. The evidence clearly spells out that the occurrence took place in the presence of Harbans Singh (PW 1), the real brother of the deceased Harjinder Singh since he along with his brother Harjinder Singh (deceased) and some other persons had gone to the school of the village for the purpose of casting their votes in the panchayat election and in such like circumstances, the presence of this witness at the place of occurrence was quite natural. 12. In Bhupendra Singh V/s. State of Punjab , their Lordships of the Apex Court observed that the fact that the prosecution witnesses in a murder trial were sons and daughters of the victim, does not detract from the value to be attached to their evidence because naturally enough they are interested in seeing that the real murderer of their father is convicted of the offence and they could not be expected to adopt a course by which some innocent persons would be substituted for the person really guilty of the murder. In fact, their feelings would be strongest against the real culprit. As such their evidence cannot be discarded on the ground of their relation with the deceased. Similar view was taken in Barati V/s. State of U.P. and Mst. Dalbir Kaur and Ors. In fact, their feelings would be strongest against the real culprit. As such their evidence cannot be discarded on the ground of their relation with the deceased. Similar view was taken in Barati V/s. State of U.P. and Mst. Dalbir Kaur and Ors. V/s. State of Punjab . 13. Now we would Like to peep through the ocular evidence through the mouth of complainant Harbans Singh, the brother of the deceased, who stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and deposed categorically that on 18-1-1993 at about 9.00 a.m. he and his brother Harjinder Singh, Sube Singh, Jarnail Singh and Pohla Singh, all residents of village Chak Saidoke were present in the school of the village to cast their votes in the panchayat election. At about 9.45 a.m. he and his brother Harjinder Singh were asking the voters, who were present there, that they should cast their votes peacefully and in an ordinary manner, so that there should not be any dispute. Meanwhile, Joginder Singh Constable, who was on duty in the school, challenged his brother Harjinder Singh, and hurled abuses at him, and then Joginder Singh-accused fired from his rifle straight at the head of his brother Harjinder Singh, as a result of which, he died at the spot. He further disclosed that earlier he had tried to stop Joginder Singh accused from firing, but he did not listen to them. The occurrence was witnessed by Jarnail Singh, Sube Singh, Pohla Singh. After the occurrence had taken place, he met the Presiding Officer, who was conducting the election, and informed him of the occurrence, who transmitted a wireless message to the police station Sadar Jallalabad and in response to this, Inspector Harbans Lal came to the spot and he recorded his statement and on the basis of his statement, FIR was registered in Police Station Sadar Jallalabad on 18-1-1993, but the police did not take any action and thereafter, he filed a complaint, Ex. PA, which bears his signature. His statement stands fully corroborated from the testimony of Sube Singh (PW 2), who had also deposed in a similar fashion. Both these witnesses were cross-examined at length, but nothing of importance could be elicited in favour of the defence. They both stuck to their stand when they appeared to depose before the learned trial Courts at the first instance. His statement stands fully corroborated from the testimony of Sube Singh (PW 2), who had also deposed in a similar fashion. Both these witnesses were cross-examined at length, but nothing of importance could be elicited in favour of the defence. They both stuck to their stand when they appeared to depose before the learned trial Courts at the first instance. Harbans Lal, DSP, who stepped into the witness box as PW-4, deposed that on 18-1-1993, he recorded the statement of Harbans Singh complainant, which was read over to him and after admitting it to be correct, he appended his signatures thereon and on its basis, a formal FIR, Ex. PC, was recorded. All this shows that police machinery was set into motion by the complainant at the earliest and in a statement before Harbans Lal, DSP, (PW-4), which was recorded on 18-1-1993, he has given similar version, which was pleaded by him in his complaint, which was filed by him, since no action was taken by the police. It appears that no action was taken by the police even after registration of the FIR and the case was later on recommended for cancellation and a cancellation report was prepared and this fact has been categorically admitted by Sub-Inspector Kulwant Singh (DW-4). The complainant had no other option but to knock the door of the Court through his complaint. The presence of the accused-appellant at the scene of the occurrence is also proved through the mouth of defence witnesses, though Dharamvir Naik (DW-1) has given his explanation that he heard sound of fire shot from outside the school and police personnel fired in the air and no police personnel fired straight in his view. The statement of this witness is of no help to the defence since he was not present at the actual scene of occurrence and it is categorically admitted by him that he heard the sound of fire shot from outside the school and therefore, it is not possible for him to disclose as to in which direction shot was fired. He has also categorically admitted that one person died on account of fire-arm injury. Similar statement has been suffered even by Naik Malkiat Singh, who appeared into the witness box as DW-2. He has also categorically admitted that one person died on account of fire-arm injury. Similar statement has been suffered even by Naik Malkiat Singh, who appeared into the witness box as DW-2. He has also admitted that Joginder Singh-appellant was having some fire-arm and though he was present at the place of occurrence, but he was attracted to the actual spot when he heard the firing from outside the school. Kulwant Singh S. I. (DW-4) has admitted that he discussed the case with the SSP, Ferozepur and under the orders of the SSP, he prepared cancellation report on 22-9-1993 and the same was sent to DSP, Fazilka and file was sent to Ilaqa Magistrate for approval of cancellation through the SSP Office of Ferozepur. 14. At this stage, we would also like to observe that Dharamvir Naik (DW-1) has admitted that people were not making queue and the voters wanted to poll their votes out of their turn and the version of the complainant in this regard is also corroborated by this defence witness. All this shows that people wanted to cast their votes out of turn and they were struggling against each other and in order to have peaceful voting, Harbans Singh and Harjinder Singh deceased were asking their co-villagers to stand in the queue, so that everybody could cast his vote in a peaceful and ordinary manner. There is nothing on the record to spell out snatching of ballot papers by mob, particularly when the question of snatching does not arise at 10.00 a.m. when this occurrence took place. The polling was likely to end at 4.00 p.m. or 5.00 p.m. and at that stage, when polling had just started, there could be no snatching of ballot boxes and papers by mob nor there was any occasion for the accused to fire a shot from his rifle. As already discussed above, Dharamvir Naik (DW-1) and Naik Malkiat Singh (DW-2) were not present when the fire was shot by the accused. They heard only the sound of a fire shot outside the school where they were on duty. 15. FIR Ex. PC, which was recorded by Inspector Harbans Lal (PW-4), was also recorded without any delay and it clearly spells out that fire was shot by the accused aiming at Harjinder Singh-deceased. It was not fired in the air. They heard only the sound of a fire shot outside the school where they were on duty. 15. FIR Ex. PC, which was recorded by Inspector Harbans Lal (PW-4), was also recorded without any delay and it clearly spells out that fire was shot by the accused aiming at Harjinder Singh-deceased. It was not fired in the air. It appears that police did not want to prosecute their employee and in fact, they went out of the way to help the accused-appellant. If mob was uncontrollable and there was any apprehension of snatching ballot boxes or ballot papers, then in that event, the Presiding Officer on duty would have informed the police to take preventive measure, but no such report was lodged by the Presiding Officer, who was deputed to conduct the election of the Panchayat in village Chak Saidoke. 16. The medical evidence has further advanced the case of the prosecution. There was only one pellet injury on the person of Harjinder Singh deceased and the ocular evidence further finds support from medical evidence. PW-3 Dr. Yash Pal has categorically deposed that injury was caused with fire arm and this fact is also proved from the post-mortem report Ex. PB. 17. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant was not identified by the prosecution witnesses and no identification parade was conducted, is again liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. We find from the record that FIR, Ex. PC, was recorded at the earliest, i.e., immediately after the occurrence had taken place, at the instance of Harbans Singh (PW-1). In the FIR, it is clearly stated that quarrel had taken place between accused-Joginder Singh and Harjinder Singh since Joginder Singh challenged his brother Harjinder Singh and after abusing his brother, accused-Joginder Singh fired a shot aiming at his brother Harjinder Singh-deceased from his rifle and resultantly, Harjinder Singh died at the spot. It is proved from the FIR itself that fire was shot by accused-appellant Joginder Singh aiming at Harjinder Singh, hitting his head in the presence of Harbans Singh (PW 1) and the name of Joginder Singh also figures in the FIR and the question of any identification parade does not arise in the instant case since there is no dispute regarding identification of the accused. Moreover, there is nothing on the record to spell out that firing of a shot from the rifle of the accused, which resulted in causing of the death of deceased Harjinder Singh, form part of the discharge of the official duty. It is proved on record that the accused-appellant intentionally caused the murder of the deceased by firing a direct shot on his head. 18. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complaint has been filed at a belated stage, therefore, the same is the result of consultations and deliberations, is again liable to be rejected since record spells out that occurrence in this case took place at 10.00 a.m. on 18-1-1993 and FIR was registered at 12.30 p.m. at the instance of Harbans Singh (PW 1), but police did not prosecute the accused and tried to drop the case registered against him and recommended its cancellation and in such like circumstances, the complainant was compelled to file a complaint against the accused and since the complainant was perusing the registration of the case, some delay in filing of the complaint was bound to occur, which does not make the version of the complainant doubtful, particularly when his presence at the place of occurrence when this incident took place has been held to be proved on the record of the case beyond any reasonable doubt. 19. In view of the above discussion, appeal filed by the appellant fails and is dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, is hereby affirmed.