Judgment S.D.Anand, J. 1. The appellant was convicted by the learned Trial Judge on a charge of having murdered none-else or other than his own mother Angrej Kaur as he laboured an apprehension that she would give away her agricultural holding to her daughters and would exclude him from that property thereby. 2. Angrej Kaur, a widow, owned 7-8 Killas of land situated in village Gharangana which she had leased out to Mishra Singh son of Pritam Singh resident of village Gharangana. She and her (then unmarried) daughter Ranjit Kaur used to reside with the family of PW1 Jagtar Singh, who is her nephew. The marriage of Ranjit Kaur was to be solemnised on 1.9.2001. 3. On 27.8.2001, Angrej Kaur, her brother Labh Singh (father of PW1-Jagtar Singh), and Jagtar Singh went over to the house of Mishra Singh lessee in order to realise the lease amount. Jagtar Singh drove the scooter on which Angrej Kaur was the pillion rider. Labh Singh followed them on a cycle. After the completion of the assignment, the trio came out of the house of Mishra Singh at about 8.30 AM. Just at that point of time, Swaran Kaur wife of appellant Amrik Singh and Amrik Singh himself came out of a place near the shop of one Nirbhay Singh which was at a distance of about 6-7 karms from the house of the Mishra Singh. Swaran Kaur announced that the trio was proceeding. She exhorted Amrik Singh-appellant to ensure that the trio would not be allowed to get away alive. Thereupon, appellant  Amrik Singh fired two shots, one out of which hit the left thigh of Jagtar Singh and other other hit the arm and leg of Angrej Kaur. Both the scooter riders i.e. Angrej Kaur and Jagtar Singh fell off of the vehicle and upon the ground. Thereupon, Amrik Singh also gave a kick blow on the abdomen of Angrej Kaur. He also hit her on her face and other parts of the body with the butt of the pistol. On account of the fear generated by the occurrence, Jagtar Singh lay motionless and feigned that he was dead. All through this period, Labh Singh kept on raising a raula. Thereafter, appellant  Amrik Singh and his wife Swaran Kaur fled the spot. 4. On account of the fear generated by the occurrence, Jagtar Singh lay motionless and feigned that he was dead. All through this period, Labh Singh kept on raising a raula. Thereafter, appellant  Amrik Singh and his wife Swaran Kaur fled the spot. 4. Labh Singh transported his son Jagtar Singh to Civil Hospital, Mansa, by arranging a vehicle from the village; while Angrej Kaur died at the spot itself. 5. The above allegations of the prosecution were upheld by the learned Trial Judge by placing reliance upon the testimony on oath PW1Jagtar Singh and PW4  Labh Singh. The father-son duo represented the ocular presentation; while their statements were lent credence by the medical evidence consisting of the statement of PW2-Dr. Ramesh Katodia, who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Angrej Kaur and PW3-Dr. Dupinder Kumar had medico legally examined Jagtar Singh. 6. Appellant pleaded innocence by averring as under: I am innocent. I had no dispute, whatsoever, with my mother Angrej Kaur. She was killed by some unknown persons at about 5.00/6.00 a.m. on 27.8.2001. I was weeping and wailing by the side of dead body of my mother and was picked up by the police from there and this false case was foisted upon me. 7. DW1  Misra Singh was examined in defence evidence to buttress defence plea of false implication. His testimony is to the effect that though Jagtar Singh and Angrej Kaur were found lying on the ground in front of his house at about 5.30 A.M. but that it was not the appellant who was the assailant. The averment in the context was that an unknown man with a flowing beard, who was carrying a pistol in his hand, had committed the crime. Misra Singh attributed to Jagtar Singh a statement that some unknown person had caused injuries to him and Angrej Kaur. Amrik Singh  appellant is averred by DW1 to have reached the spot after 20 minutes. As per the defence presentation, Labh Singh came to the spot at about 9 a.m. in a jeep with a view to transport Jagtar Singh to the Hospital. This witness denied having ever cultivated the land of Angrej Kaur. He also denied that Angrej Kaur, Jagtar Singh and Labh Singh visited him on the relevant date. As per the defence presentation, Labh Singh came to the spot at about 9 a.m. in a jeep with a view to transport Jagtar Singh to the Hospital. This witness denied having ever cultivated the land of Angrej Kaur. He also denied that Angrej Kaur, Jagtar Singh and Labh Singh visited him on the relevant date. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record. 8. At the very outset, we may formulate the points argued before we proceed to state our reasoning and record our conclusions. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued in favour of invalidation of the impugned finding on the following counts: i) The prosecution has not been able to prove any fact which may have motivated the appellant to do away with his own mother. It was pointed out, in the context, that there is evidence available on the file that the appellant, his deceased mother and his sisters had already inherited agricultural holding on the death of their father and, thus, there was no reason for the appellant to bear a grudge against the deceased. ii) It is, in fact, presenter of the ocular version i.e. PW1  Jagtar Singh and his father PW4  Labh Singh who have an axe to grind by ensuring that the appellant is disabled from inheriting the property of his deceased mother. 9. Insofar as the grievance at item (i) is concerned, we find it to be not only devoid of force, but also illogical and divorced from the material obtaining on the file. It may be noticed, at this stage, that the precise motive attributed to the appellant is that he had an apprehension that his deceased mother would give away her share of the agricultural holding to her daughters to the exclusion of the appellant. It is this grievance which actuated the appellant to indulge in the dastardly act. It cannot, thus, be said with any justification that the appellant had no motive to murder his mother. Apart therefrom, it would require pointed notice that the mere absence or non-proof of motive on the part of assailant would not entitle him to claim exoneration from liability on a criminal charge. In this case, however, the prosecution has been able to prove a precise motive on the part of the appellant in murdering in his own mother. 10. Apart therefrom, it would require pointed notice that the mere absence or non-proof of motive on the part of assailant would not entitle him to claim exoneration from liability on a criminal charge. In this case, however, the prosecution has been able to prove a precise motive on the part of the appellant in murdering in his own mother. 10. The grievance indicated at Item No. (ii), also deserves to be negatived. It is beyond the pale of controversy, in the face of the evidence on the file, that daughters of deceased are living and that the deceased, along with an unmarried daughter of hers, was putting up with her married daughter  Manjit Kaur. It shows that the relations between the deceased and her daughters were absolutely cordial. In ordinary course, thus, the property of the deceased would have been inherited by her daughters. As per the proof on the file, PW4  Labh Singh is not the real brother of the deceased. Thus, PW1  Jagtar Singh, who is a son of PW4  Labh Singh, is also not a direct relation of the deceased. There is neither averment nor proof that PW1  Jagtar Singh and PW4  Labh Singh are related to the deceased in a manner which would entitle them to inherit her property. That being so, it is uncharitable to aver that PW1  Jagtar Singh and PW4  Labh Singh could have, in any manner, framed the appellant so as to disable him from inheriting the property of the deceased. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant, then, argued that the prosecution plea does not deserve acceptance in view of the fact that Mishra Singh had denied being the lessee of agricultural holding belonging to the deceased and had also denied that the deceased, Jagtar Singh and latters father paid any visit to him on the relevant date. 12. We have not been persuaded to find any force in the plea. In fact, the fact of DW1  Mishra Singh having entered the witness box would only justify the apprehension on the part of the prosecution that he had been won over by the appellant. 12. We have not been persuaded to find any force in the plea. In fact, the fact of DW1  Mishra Singh having entered the witness box would only justify the apprehension on the part of the prosecution that he had been won over by the appellant. It requires to be noticed that, on the own showing of DW1  Mishra Singh, Jagtar Singh and Angrej Kaur were found lying upon the ground in the street (in front of house of that witness) when he was woken up at about 5.30 A.M. by the sound of a fire shot and he came out of his house. He wants the Court to believe that one man with a flowing beard had been seen giving blows to Angrej Kaur. He would also want the Court to believe that the appellant  Amrik Singh reached there after about 20 minutes and that Labh Singh reached there at about 9 a.m. in a jeep and transported Jagtar Singh (PW1) to the hospital at Mansa. In fact, the testimony of DW1 firmly establishes the availability of Angrej Kaur and PW1  Jagtar Singh at the spot. DW1-Misra Singh did not at all make any endeavour to explain why did appellant  Amrik Singh at all reach the spot after about 20 minutes (of the impugned occurrence). It is not his plea that anyone had called him to the spot or that the raula attracted him at the spot. On the own showing of DW1  Mishra Singh the occurrence had taken place at about 5.30 A.M. That would be fairly early time even during summer season. Amrik Singh  appellant is not proved to be living in the immediate vicinity of the house of Mishra Singh. There is also neither averment nor proof that the appellant  Amrik Singh had any reason to go to the house of Mishra Singh, particularly at those early hours. In that very vein, DW1  Mishra Singh does not at all explain the circumstances which prompted Labh Singh (PW4) to come to the spot at about 9 a.m. in a jeep. He does not at all state that the impugned occurrence had been intimated to Labh Singh. In that very vein, DW1  Mishra Singh does not at all explain the circumstances which prompted Labh Singh (PW4) to come to the spot at about 9 a.m. in a jeep. He does not at all state that the impugned occurrence had been intimated to Labh Singh. For want of any information, there is no way Labh Singh would have come over to the lane in front of the house of Mishra Singh at 9 a.m. It lends credence to the fact that he had indeed accompanied the deceased and Jagtar Singh. 13. It may be noticed here that the trio (the deceased, Labh Singh and Jagtar Singh) had a reason to visit Mishra Singh on the relevant date. As per the testimony of PW1 and PW4, the marriage of the unmarried daughter of the deceased was to be solemnised on 01.09.2001. There was, thus, nothing unnatural on the part of the deceased having gone over to him to collect lease amount which could be used at the time of marriage. There is nothing unusual in the lease in favour of Mishra Singh not having been recorded in his revenue record as such things are a common practice in the countryside. 14. The inference culled out from the above discussion is indicative of putrefied moral hygiene of the appellant and the circumstances decoded are revelatory of the appellant being a man of debased mind set. 15. No other point was argued. 16. For the above indicated reasons, we are of the opinion that the prosecution had indeed proved its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The appeal merits dismissal and it is so ordered accordingly.