JUDGMENT H.S. Bhalla, J. - By this common judgment, we shall be disposing of Criminal Appeal bearing No.714-DB of 1997 filed by the appellant and Criminal Revision No. 270 of 1998 filed by Anita Grover petitioner for enhancement of sentence and compensation together as they arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 6.10.1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. 2. Before Monika, aged about 13 years, could enjoy warmth of her life, she met her edge of doom at the hands of appellant Tinku @ Kamal, who was tried by learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur and was convicted under Section 302/307/449 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default thereof, he was directed to undergo imprisonment for a further period of six months. Appellant was convicted under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- and in default thereof, he was directed to undergo imprisonment for a further period of three months. Appellant was further convicted under Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- and in default thereof, he was directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. A synoptical resume of the prosecution case is as under: Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that accused Tinku alias Kamal had become god brother (dharam bhai) of complainant Anita and her deceased sister Monika and he was on visiting terms to their house, situated in Gali Mistrianwali, Ferozepur City. On 11.7.1995 at about 6.30 P.M., accused along with his mother had come to the house of the complainant. After some time, the mother of the accused and mother of the complainant went to the bazar and thereafter, only the accused and both the sisters, namely, Anita complainant and Monika deceased remained in the house. After some time, the accused asked Anita that he (accused) is going to dera and that she (Anita) should also accompany him, but the complainant refused to accompany him. After some time, the accused asked Anita that he (accused) is going to dera and that she (Anita) should also accompany him, but the complainant refused to accompany him. For some time accused kept mum, but then he took out a kirch from the right side of fold of his pant and gave two kirch blows in the stomach of Anita and he also gave two blows with the kirch at her back. On receipt of the injuries, Anita fell down on the ground. Thereafter, accused rushed towards Monika, who was present in the opposite room and started giving kirch blows to her. Monika also raised a hue and cry and then the accused ran away from the spot along with kirch. The motive behind the occurrence, as alleged by Anita complainant, is that some days prior to the incident, accused came to their house and finding the complainant alone, the accused caught hold of her from the arm and the complainant rebuked the accused for his mischief. 4. Mother of the complainant reached the spot. Some neighbourers also reached there. Anita and Monika were shifted to Amar Hospital, Ferozepur. Information was sent to police station city Ferozepur regarding admission of both the injured in the hospital, whereupon Inspector Des Raj went to Amar Hospital. On the application, Ex. P4, moved by Inspector Des Raj, doctor vide his endorsement Ex. P4/A declared Monika unfit to make a statement, whereas, on police application, Ex. P-5, the doctor vide his endorsement Ex. P-5/A declared Anita fit to make a statement. Statement of Anita, Ex. P-6, was recorded by Inspector Des Raj and he made his endorsement, Ex. P-6/B and sent the same to the police station, where on its basis, formal FIR, Ex. P-6/C was recorded. Doctor also made his endorsement, Ex. P-6/A on the statement of Anita. Monika succumbed to the injuries in the hospital, whereupon, Inspector Desh Raj sent an intimation to the police vide ruqa, Ex. P-17, and offence was converted into one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; inquest report, Ex. P-11, was prepared and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination through Head Constable Gurbinder Singh and Gurmail Singh vide his request Ex. P-12. 5. Inspector Des Raj visited the place of occurrence, inspected the spot, prepared rough site plan, Ex. P-18, with correct marginal notes. P-11, was prepared and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination through Head Constable Gurbinder Singh and Gurmail Singh vide his request Ex. P-12. 5. Inspector Des Raj visited the place of occurrence, inspected the spot, prepared rough site plan, Ex. P-18, with correct marginal notes. He lifted blood stains from two places with the help of cotton and the same was put into two separate plastic containers and were sealed with the seal bearing letters ‘DR’ and were taken into possession vide memos Ex.P-19 and Ex. P-20. The clothes of Anita were taken into possession vide memo Ex. P-21, whereas, the clothes of Monika deceased were taken into possession vide memo Ex. P-22. Inspector Des Raj searched for the accused, but he was not traceable. On 13.7.1995 on receipt of the secret information, accused was arrested while going on Ichhewala road. On his search, Rs.30/- was recovered and taken into possession vide memo Ex. P-23. On 15.7.1995, while in police custody, accused was interrogated by Inspector Des Raj and he made disclosure statement, Ex. P-24, regarding concealment of kirch and then in pursuance of the same got recovered the kirch from the specified place. The kirch was stained with blood. Its sketch, Ex. P8 was prepared. Kirch was converted into’ a sealed parcel and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. P-25. After completion of necessary formalities, accused was challaned and sent up for trial. 6. Accused was charge-sheeted under sections 302/307 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 7. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Dr. K.N.S. Dhillon (PW-1), Dr. Faqir Masih (PW-2), Sunder Singh, Draftsman (PW-3) Gurcharan Singh, Head Constable (PW-4), Dalbir Singh, Constable (PW-5), Anita, complainant (PW-6), Sukhchain Lal (PW-7), Gurwinder Singh, Head Constable (PW-8) and Des Raj, Inspector (PW-9) and after tendering into evidence report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex. P­ 27, closed its evidence. Accused when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated. However, he opted to lead evidence in defence and he got examined Janak Rani as DW-1. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. However, he opted to lead evidence in defence and he got examined Janak Rani as DW-1. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that no strong motive has been provided by the prosecution for the commission of the crime. The catching of arm of the complainant by the accused is not such a motive by virtue of which it could be established that crime was committed only on account of this trivial matter. 9. We have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the same has been scrutinised by us in view of the evidence available on record. The contention of the learned counsel regarding motive part is liable to be rejected and the appellant is not entitled to acquittal merely on this short ground alone, because we are of the opinion that the 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 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 the offence. In order to conclude with regard to the motive in this case, we would finally like to observe that motive is not 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. The entire case of the prosecution revolves around the statement of injured-complainant Anita, who was examined as PW-6. At this stage, we would like to peep through the evidence put forward by the prosecution through the mouth of this injured witness. We find that she has categorically deposed that accused present in the Court was their God brother (Dharam Bhai) and he used to visit their house. At this stage, we would like to peep through the evidence put forward by the prosecution through the mouth of this injured witness. We find that she has categorically deposed that accused present in the Court was their God brother (Dharam Bhai) and he used to visit their house. On 11.7.1995 at abbut 6.30 P.M., accused and his mother came to their house and after some time, her mother and mother of Tinku went to bazar and while she was standing in the courtyard in front of their room, accused asked her to accompany him to dera, but he was told that she does not want to go to the dera and if he wants, he can go there. Monika was also standing on the threshhold of the room and for some time accused remained standing there, but he took out a kirch from the right side fold of his pant and gave two kirch blows hitting his abdomen and two at her back. She raised an alarm and fell down on the ground, but the accused went towards her sister, Monika and started, giving blows to her landing in her abdomen. Thereafter, he ran away from the spot when they raised alarm through the stair case, which leads through the street along with weapon. Her mother came to the spot. Some neighbourers also collected there including Sukhchain Lal (PW-7). She narrated to her mother Tinku had given her kirch blows and to Monika. People who collected there, removed her and Monika to Amar Hospital, Ferozepur. Monika died in the hospital due to the injuries. Police came to the hospital and recorded her statement, Ex. P-6, which was read over to her and she signed the same in the token of its correctness. She further disclosed that her statement was recorded in the presence of Dr. Dhillon at Amar Hospital. She was cross-examined at length by the learned defence counsel, but nothing of importance could be elicited in favour of the defence and in fact, she stood like a rock and stuck to her earlier statement Ex. P-6, which was given to the police. The case of the prosecution was further advanced through the statement of Sukhchain Lal (PW-7), who has categorically deposed that about one year and nine months back at 6.30/6.45 P.M. he went to the dental clinic of Dr. P-6, which was given to the police. The case of the prosecution was further advanced through the statement of Sukhchain Lal (PW-7), who has categorically deposed that about one year and nine months back at 6.30/6.45 P.M. he went to the dental clinic of Dr. Saroj Chawla to get his teeth treated, but Dr. Saroj Chawla was not in her clinic and then he went to the house of Dr. Saroj Chawla. When he reached near the house of Dr. Saroj Chawla, he heard the shrieks from the first floor of the house of Ram Parkash. In the meanwhile, appellant Kamal alias Tinku present in the Court was seen coming down from the stair case, which is common with the house of Ram Parkash and Dr. Saroj Chawla. At that time, he saw a kirch in the hand of accused which was stained with blood. Accused ran away with kirch towards purana bazar, but he did not try to catch hold of the accused as the kirch was in his hand. He then went to the first floor to the house of Ram Parkash. In the meantime, neighbours also collected there. He saw that one daughter of Ram Parkash, namely, Anita was lying in an injured condition in the courtyard, the other daughter Monika was lying in an injured condition in the threshhold of the room. He brought a three wheeler and after bringing the girls down, the neighbours removed the injured to Amar Hospital. Dr. K.N.S.Dhillon was examined as PW-1, who examined the deceased as well as complainant Anita, when they were brought to Amar Hospital and he has disclosed that on 11.7.1995 at 9.30 P.M. Vide his endorsement, Ex. P-5/A, which is in his handwriting and bears his signatures, he declared Anita as fit to make a statement and the statement, Ex. P-6, of Anita was recorded by Inspector Des Raj in his presence and gave certificate, Ex. P-6/A and the entire statement has been recorded by the patient himself in his presence and all through this period, she was fully conscious and well oriented in time space and person. He has further opined that injuries on the person of Monika and Anita could be caused with kirch and he gave his opinion that all the injuries sustained by Miss Anita and Monika deceased could be caused by the weapon in figure Ex. P-8. Dr. He has further opined that injuries on the person of Monika and Anita could be caused with kirch and he gave his opinion that all the injuries sustained by Miss Anita and Monika deceased could be caused by the weapon in figure Ex. P-8. Dr. Faqir Masih (PW-2) conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Monika, aged about 13 years and he has categorically ­deposed that cause of death in his opinion was haemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries and all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to have caused death in ordinary course of nature. He has further disclosed that the injuries found on the dead body could be caused with kirch and the direction of injury No.1 is from downward to upward slightly and even if the assailant is taller than the victim, even then injury No.1 could be caused. 11. Recovery of kirch, which was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by the accused during the course of interrogation has further advanced the case of the prosecution. PW-9 Inspector Des Raj, the Investigating Officer of this case, has disclosed that he interrogated the accused in the presence of Head Constable Madan Lal and ASI Surinder Mohan and during the course of interrogation, accused suffered disclosure statement that he had kept concealed a kirch in his residential room in a drum meant for wheat by concealing it. His statement, Ex. P-24, was recorded, which was signed by the accused and attested by ASI Surinder Mohan and HC Madan Lal. In pursuance of that disclosure statement, the accused led the police party to the place of disclosure. Before effecting the recovery, Chiman Lal PW was joined in the investigation. In the presence of Chiman Lal PW, accused got recovered kirch from the wheat drum, which was stained with blood and was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. P-25. All this clearly spells out that Anita immediately after the occurrence made a statement, Ex. P-6, before Inspector Des Raj in which she disclosed the name of the accused and the weapon used by him. The occurrence had taken place at about 6.30 P.M.. After the occurrence, injured was removed to the hospital and Monika was medico legally examined at 7.00 P.M. on 11.7.1995. Thereafter, Miss Anita was Medico legally examined. It has come in the cross-examination of Dr. The occurrence had taken place at about 6.30 P.M.. After the occurrence, injured was removed to the hospital and Monika was medico legally examined at 7.00 P.M. on 11.7.1995. Thereafter, Miss Anita was Medico legally examined. It has come in the cross-examination of Dr. K.N.S. Dhillon that Anita remained in the operation theater from 7.00 P.M. to 9.00 P.M and she was operated upon during the intervening period. She was sent for X-ray chest after 9.00 P.M. that is after the operation and X-ray was done within five minutes and thereafter she was kept in the adjacent room of the operation theater and then he sent an information to the police and on receipt of the information, Inspector Des Raj reached Amar Hospital and recorded the statement of Anita, Ex. P-6, which was completed at 10.15 P.M. and the FIR was recorded at 10.45 P.M. on 11.7.1995.Special report reached the lIaqa Magistrate at 1.00 A.M. through Constable Sukhdial Singh as is clear from Ex. P-6/C. Therefore, the FIR was recorded promptly without due deliberation and consultation. There is no motive on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the accused as there was no earlier enmity between the accused and the complainant. In the instant case, we find that FIR is prompt in which all the details of the occurrence and the weapon used by the accused have been mentioned. Complainant Anita PW-6 has given the first hand account of the occurrence as to what had happened at the spot and who was responsible for the offence in question. Therefore, the contention of the learned defence counsel that the prosecution has concocted a false story is not sustainable. Medical evidence fits in with the ocular account given by the witnesses and there is nothing on record to spell out that the crime has not been committed in the manner in which it has been suggested by the prosecution. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the occurrence had not taken place at the time as alleged by the prosecution and the prosecution has adjusted the timing as it suits to the case of the prosecution again does not cut any ice with us. We find from the record that the occurrence took place at 6.30 P.M. After the occurrence, Monika and Miss Anita were removed to the hospital. Monika was medico-legally examined by Dr. We find from the record that the occurrence took place at 6.30 P.M. After the occurrence, Monika and Miss Anita were removed to the hospital. Monika was medico-legally examined by Dr. K.N.S. Dhilion at 7.00 P.M. From 7.00 P.M. to 9.00 P.M., Anita remained in the operation theater. No doubt, Dr. Parveen Dhingra who is the son of father’s sister of Anita complainant, is partner in Amar Hospital as admitted by Anita (PW-6), but that does not cause any dent in the prosecution case even if injured were brought to that hospital. And moreover, by changing the time of occurrence, prosecution case is not to gain anything. If occurrence had taken place at 6.00 P.M. and the admission in the hospital would have been shown at 8.00 P.M., then the defence could argue that in order to show that FIR is prompt, two hours have been consumed, but in the instant case, the occurrence had taken place at 6.30 P.M., whereas the defence has alleged that the occurrence had taken place 8.00 or 8.30 P.M., but this contention of the learned defence counsel is against the documentary evidence on the record, i.e., bed head tickets, which clearly spell out that injured were brought to the hospital at 7.00 P.M. on 11.7.1995. Therefore, from the evidence of Anita corroborated by the medical evidence, it is clearly established that the occurrence had taken place at 6.30 P.M. and not at 8.00/8.30 P.M. as suggested by the defence counsel. The contention of the learned defence counsel that the injured were not taken to Civil Hospital, but have been taken to Amar Hospital, which is owned by Dr. Parveen Dhingra, who is the cousin brother of Anita complainant therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is doubtful, is again liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. Monika and Anita sustained serious injuries and people gathered at the spot thought it proper to shift them to a private hospital for better treatment and even if they were not taken to the Civil Hospital, that does not falsify the case of the prosecution. Moreover, when cousin brother of Anita is running a hospital and both the injured were in serious condition, the mother of the injured would like to shift her daughters to a place where they can be looked after properly. Moreover, when cousin brother of Anita is running a hospital and both the injured were in serious condition, the mother of the injured would like to shift her daughters to a place where they can be looked after properly. We would also like to observe that the case of the prosecution in such like circumstances becomes doubtful if there would have been superficial and simple injuries, which could be self suffered, but in the instant case, injuries on the person of Monika and Anita were not simple. Monika succumbed to her injuries in the hospital and the injuries on the person of complainant Anita were also found dangerous to life. Minor contradictions coming in the statements of the witnesses are bound to occur when they depose in the Court truthfully after a lapse of time and the same were not required to be considered, especially when they do not materially affect the case of the prosecution on material particular. Dr. K.N.S.Dhillon (PW-1) found seven stab wounds on the person of Monika and four stab wounds on the person of Anita. This witness has also deposed that the injuries found on the person of Anita could be caused with kirch Ex. MO-1, Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is fully established that injuries on the person of Monika and Anita were the result of Kirch and in this manner, there is no contradiction between ocular version given by Anita PW-6 and the medical evidence: 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant tried to build a castle on the sandy foundation at this stage by submitting that there is no corresponding cut on the clothes worn by Monika and Anita and in the absence of all this, the entire case of the prosecution falls to the ground. But this contention of the learned defence counsel is liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection since we find that the clothes of Monika and Anita were produced before the learned lower court and got exhibited by the prosecution and these clothes were taken out from the sealed parcels. Anita has deposed that Shirt, Salwar, underwear and undershirt are her clothes, which she was wearing when she received the injuries and these clothes were removed by the doctor in the hospital. Anita has deposed that Shirt, Salwar, underwear and undershirt are her clothes, which she was wearing when she received the injuries and these clothes were removed by the doctor in the hospital. This version given by Anita’ has not been challenged in the cross-examination nor it was suggested that she was not wearing any cloth at the time of occurrence. Even it was not suggested by the learned defence counsel that these clothes do not bear any corresponding cut. No doubt, Dr. K.N.S.Dhilion has not stated with regard to any corresponding cut and mere omission on the part of the doctor particularly when defence has not asked any question with regard to the clothes, which were produced in the court after opening the sealed parcels and that there was any corresponding cut, does not make the prosecution story doubtful in any manner. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has been able to prove its case on the basis of ocular version given by Anita (PW-6), who has furnished details regarding date, time and place and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place and the weapon used by the accused and immediately after the occurrence, accused was seen leaving the place of occurrence with the weapon of offence by Sukhchain Lal (PW-7) and the evidence given by complainant Anita (PW-6) and Sukhchain Lal (PW-7) is further corroborated by the medical evidence given by Dr. K.N.S.Dhillon (PW-1) and Dr. Faqir Masih (PW-2). Seeing from every angle, the inevitable result is that the case of the prosecution against the appellant has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant fails and is dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded by Sessions Judge, Ferozepur is affirmed. Since Criminal Appeal No.714-DB of 1997 filed by the appellant has been dismissed, therefore, we find no substance in Criminal Revision No.270 of 1998 filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence and award of compensation. It is, accordingly, dismissed. ————————