Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 607 (PNJ)

Mohit v. State of Haryana

2014-03-24

JASPAL SINGH, RAJIVE BHALLA

body2014
JUDGMENT The appellants have preferred the instant appeal challenging the judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2008 and order of sentence dated 10.12.2008, in case FIR No. 321 dated 05.08.2006 passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby they have been convicted under Section 302/201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/each and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months under Section 302 IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years under Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by Surender Kumar son of Hans Raj, caste Arora, resident of House No.422/20, Street No.6, Roop Nagar Colony, Hansi is that on August 04, 2006 at about 6:00 p.m., Sudesh Yadav son of Balwan Yadav, resident of Jamavri, Davender Chawla son of Jagan Nath and Mohit son of Harbans Lal, all are residents of Roop Nagar Colony, Hisar, came to his house and took his brother Sanjeev @ Goga with them. Thereafter, they consumed liquor in a hotel but due to some work, Sudesh Yadav had gone towards Barsi Gate, Hansi whereas his brother Sanjeev @ Goga, Davender Chawla and Mohit had gone towards Umra Road, Hansi. Sudesh Yadav returned to his house whereas Davender Chawla, Sanjeev @ Goga and Mohit were present at Canal Bridge and at that time, Davender Chawla was having a pistol. When his brother did not return to the house, he searched for him and reported the matter to the police vide Mark A. On August 05, 2006 at about 6:30/7:00 p.m., Sudesh Yadav met him and informed that he had seen his brother Sanjeev @ Goga, Davender Chawla and Mohit on the bank of river, at Umra Road, Hansi. Thereafter, he reached at canal bridge, Umra Road, Hansi where he spotted blood lying in large quantity. It has further been alleged by him that Davender Chawla and Mohit committed murder of his brother Sanjeev @ Goga. He also disclosed that motive behind commission of murder of his brother, is that a quarrel had taken place between Davender Chawla and Sanjeev @ Goga regarding which a case was pending between them in the court. He also identified shoe of his brother. He also disclosed that motive behind commission of murder of his brother, is that a quarrel had taken place between Davender Chawla and Sanjeev @ Goga regarding which a case was pending between them in the court. He also identified shoe of his brother. It was also alleged by him that even Davender Chawla and Mohit had confessed their guilt for committing murder of his brother Sanjeev @ Goga before Naresh son of Bansi Lal resident of Roop Nagar Colony, Hansi. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, formal FIR Ex.PA was put into black and white by SI, Amar Singh. Prior to this, on receipt of a telephonic message by police on August 04, 2006, ASI Ashok Kumar accompanied by other police officials reached at the spot and took into possession blood stained earth and empty cartridge and a shoe make 'Tracer' after converting the same into sealed parcels. He also recorded the statement of witnesses. Dead body of Sanjeev @ Goga was fished out from the canal and got subjected to autopsy. Accused Mohit was arrested on August 06, 2006 and was subjected to custodial interrogation during which he suffered a disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof he got identified the place of occurrence. On September 25, 2006 Ashwani Kumar was arrested in case FIR No. 385 dated September 25, 2006, under Section 285 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station City Hansi, who also confessed his involvement in the commission of murder of Sanjeev @ Goga. Davender Chawla was arrested in case FIR No. 429 dated September 20, 2006, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned Court, he was arrested in this case. When he was subjected to custodial interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that he has kept concealed a country made pistol under a tree near Dharamshala at Haridawar about which he has only got the knowledge and could get the same recovered. Accordingly, his disclosure statement Ex.PT was jotted down. After preparation of its sketch Ex.PW and converting the same into a sealed parcel, it was taken into possession by the investigating officer vide memo Ex.P17/PX. He also prepared rough site plan of the place of its recovery. An offence under Section 216 IPC was also added. Accordingly, his disclosure statement Ex.PT was jotted down. After preparation of its sketch Ex.PW and converting the same into a sealed parcel, it was taken into possession by the investigating officer vide memo Ex.P17/PX. He also prepared rough site plan of the place of its recovery. An offence under Section 216 IPC was also added. Another accused Ramesh Kumar @ Bori was also arrested and interrogated in this case. After completion of all formalities and receipt of reports from Forensic Science Laboratory, report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. was presented in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, who committed it to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. after having complied with provisions contained in Section 207 Cr.P.C. vide order dated November 01, 2006. 4. Finding a prima facie evidence in report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and the documents annexed with it, the appellants were charged to face trial under Section 302/201 read with Section 120B IPC, to which, they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to substantiate charges framed against the appellants, prosecution examined Surender Kumar complainant PW1, who excelled investigating agency into motion by making his statement to SI Amar Singh and ultimately formed the basis of FIR Ex.PA. It has also been deposed by him that he accompanied by police also visited Canal Bridge, Umra Road, Hansi where dead body of his brother Sanjeev @ Goga was floating in a canal, which was fished out and then sent to General Hospital, Hansi whereby the same was subjected to autopsy. PW2 Naresh Kumar is a witness of conspiracy alleged to be hatched by Davender Chawla and Mohit (appellants) for committing murder of Sanjeev @ Goga. PW3 Sunil Kumar @ Bittu has deposed that Davender Chawla, Mohit and one Sudesh Yadav while standing outside the house summoned Sanjeev @ Goga from his house and thereafter, Sanjeev @ Goga did not return. PW4 Dr. Rajneesh Sehgal, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Hansi conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sanjeev @ Goga and observed the following injuries: “1. There were 6 incised looking wounds wearing in size 2 to 3 cm in length and 0.5 cm in breadth in left occipito parietal region. On dissection the underlying bone was found intact. 2. There was lacerated wound about 0.5 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. and abrasion about 5 c.m. over the left eye. 3. There were 6 incised looking wounds wearing in size 2 to 3 cm in length and 0.5 cm in breadth in left occipito parietal region. On dissection the underlying bone was found intact. 2. There was lacerated wound about 0.5 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. and abrasion about 5 c.m. over the left eye. 3. There was about 2 ½ c.m. over shaped wound on the back of right side of lower part of chest and the fat muscles were seen coming out of wound. On tracking the wound, it was tracked to liver which bas badly lacerated then to head of pancreas and abdominal aorta, both of which were also lacerated. There was blackening and tatooing of skin. The abdominal cavity was full of blood. Several pellets were recovered from liver, viscera and abdominal cavity. A pink coloured plastic wad was also recovered from liver. The pellets and wad were sealed in a bottle and handed over to the police. 4. Right lung was also punctured with pellets being recovered from it and the theroic cavity was full of blood. All the other organs were pale and healthy. The cause of death in this case was declared to be due to shock and haemorrhage, due to injuries to vital organs, liver pancreas, right lung and abdominal aorta. The injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of life. It was also opined that the injuries mentioned above were due to fire arm. The time between death and post mortem was declared to be 24 to 48 hours. The copy of post mortem report is Ex.PE and the Ex.PF is the diagram, showing the location of injuries. He also initialed inquest report Ex.PG. PW5 HC Dharampal was present when Ashwani Kumar was subjected to custodial interrogation by SI Ram Kumar, who suffered disclosure statement Ex.P4. PW6 ASI Ashok Kumar visited the place of occurrence on receipt of a telephonic message from Umra Road, Canal Bridge, Hansi where he spotted some blood lying on the bank of canal, empty cartridge of 12 bore, one shoe make “Tracer”, which were taken into possession by him after converting the same into parcel. PW6 ASI Ashok Kumar visited the place of occurrence on receipt of a telephonic message from Umra Road, Canal Bridge, Hansi where he spotted some blood lying on the bank of canal, empty cartridge of 12 bore, one shoe make “Tracer”, which were taken into possession by him after converting the same into parcel. He also lifted blood stained earth and simple earth and took into possession after converting the same into sealed parcels and affixing his seal bearing expression AK, which was subsequently deposited by him with MHC, Police Station City Hansi on August 05, 2006. PW7 HC Jaibir Singh handled the case property of the instant case and submitted his sworn affidavit Ex.PJ. PW8 EHC Dharampal was a member of the investigating team headed by SI Amar Singh. Mohit was subjected to interrogation, who suffered his statement Ex.PK and pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PL. PW9 Rajinder Parshad, Halqa Patwari visited the place of occurrence on October 09, 2006 and prepared scaled site plan Ex.PM on the demarcation of Sudesh Yadav and at the instance of ASI Ashok Kumar. PW10 ASI Saroj Bala interrogated Ashwani Kumar in case FIR No.385 dated 25.09.2006 under Section 285 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act during which he made disclosure statement Ex.PN and appended his signature on it. She also recorded statement of HC Suresh Kumar and Ram Kumar under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. PW11 EASI Ramphal took into possession three parcels containing clothes, ornaments and a sealed bottle containing pallets and wad vide memo Ex.PQ, which were handed over to him by Medical Officer. PW12 Surinder Kumar clicked photographs of the dead body and proved photographs Ex.P10 to Ex.P13 and negatives thereof Ex.P14 to Ex.P16. PW13 Constable Balraj Singh furnished his sworn affidavit Ex.PS, who handed the case property of the instant case. PW14 SI Ram Kumar, partly investigated this case. He also arrested accused Davender Chawla and subjected to interrogation, who suffered a disclosure statement and subsequently pointed out the place of occurrence. He also got recovered a pistol from accused Davender Chawla in pursuance of his disclosure statement. PW15 ASI Ishwar Singh was with police party and interrogated accused Davender Chawla, who subsequently got recovered a pistol. He also prepared a site plan of the place of recovery of pistol Ex.PY. He also got recovered a pistol from accused Davender Chawla in pursuance of his disclosure statement. PW15 ASI Ishwar Singh was with police party and interrogated accused Davender Chawla, who subsequently got recovered a pistol. He also prepared a site plan of the place of recovery of pistol Ex.PY. PW16 SI Ranbir Singh is also a witness of a recovery of country made pistol from Davender Chawla. PW17 Constable Virender Singh, delivered special report to JMIC and DSP Hansi. PW18 HC Amar Singh, tendered his sworn affidavit Ex.PAA and handed over the case property of the instant case. PW19 SI(Retired) Amar Singh, conducted initial investigation of this case. He got recovered the dead body, got it subjected to autopsy and took into possession various articles recovered from the dead body, which were handed over to him by the concerned medical officer. Apart from it, he also recorded statements of various witnesses. PW20 Constable Baljinder Singh, submitted his sworn affidavit Ex.PDD, handed over the case property for sometime during the course of investigation. PW21 SI Chander Bhan, also conducted part investigation of this case. PW22 Inspector Narender Singh, prepared and presented the challan. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence after placing on record reports Ex.PEE and Ex.PFF of Forensic Science Laboratory. 6. When incriminating circumstances, appearing in prosecution evidence were put to the accused for eliciting their explanations as required under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they denied the same, pleaded innocence and complained of false implication in this case due to ill will with police. They did like to adduce evidence in their defence but subsequently closed without adducing any oral as well as documentary evidence. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appraisal of evidence, appellants Mohit and Davender Chawla were convicted and sentenced as reflected in para No.1 of this judgment whereas Ashwani Kumar and Ramesh @ Bori were acquitted. 8. Feeling dissatisfied, Mohit and Davender Chawla have preferred the instant appeal, which was admitted for hearing by this Court vide order dated January 12, 2009. Lower court's record was requisitioned and received. 9. While assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, it has been argued with vehemence by learned counsel for the appellants that both appellants have been implicated in the instant case their being an ill will with the police. Lower court's record was requisitioned and received. 9. While assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, it has been argued with vehemence by learned counsel for the appellants that both appellants have been implicated in the instant case their being an ill will with the police. In fact, prosecution has failed to collect any evidence against either of the appellants regarding the alleged commission of murder of Sanjeev @ Goga. The case of the prosecution solely hinges upon circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence. In such a situation, the prosecution is obliged to prove culpability of the appellants by completing the chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the appellants-accused but in the case in hand, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove involvement of either of the appellants leading to the alleged commission of murder of Sanjeev @ Goga. There is yet another basic rule of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case of circumstantial evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the Court should adopt the latter view favourable to the accused. 10. In the case in hand, prosecution has sought to prove involvement of the appellants on the basis of last seen theory, suffering of disclosure statement by Davender Chawla and Mohit appellants, respectively, pointing out the place of occurrence and recovery of a country made pistol of 12 bore in pursuance of disclosure statement alleged to have suffered by Davender Chawla. In fact, Davender Chawla did not suffer any disclosure statement nor got recovered any pistol. Though various investigating officers conducted investigation at different intervals prior to the presentation of challan and recorded various disclosure statements in the shape of confession with regard to commission of murder of Sanjeev @ Goga but that part of their statements is otherwise inadmissible in evidence being hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. No recovery of any article or weapon was affected from appellant Mohit. 11. No recovery of any article or weapon was affected from appellant Mohit. 11. While developing his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that there was no motive for either of the appellants to commit murder of Sanjeev @ Goga and prosecution has also miserably failed to establish the same. In a case based upon circumstantial evidence, motive plays a vital role and in the absence of proof thereof, prosecution can not be said to have fully established the offence. The motive put forth by complainant Surender Kumar is that earlier a quarrel took place in between Davender Chawla and his brother Sanjeev @ Goga pertaining to which the matter was pending in the Court but if that was the situation, Surender Kumar PW1 would not have allowed his brother Sanjeev @ Goga to accompany Davender Chawla etc. Moreover, there is no evidence to corroborate solitary statement of PW1 Surender Kumar in this regard. The fact of the matter is that Sanjeev @ Goga was having criminal antecedent and may have been killed by some unknown person but since complainant Surender Kumar and his family were harboring ill will, they roped in appellants by concocting a false story. 12. It was next argued by learned counsel for the appellants that even statement of PW1 Surender Kumar is unreliable and unworthy of credence. Even as per his version, on August 04, 2006 at about 6:00 p.m. when he was present in his house, Sudesh Yadav son of Balwan Yadav, Davender Chawla and Mohit came to his residence and took his brother Sanjeev @ Goga with them. Thereafter, they consumed liquor at a hotel. Sudesh Yadav left them at Barsi Gate and at the time, Sanjeev @ Goga was in the company of Mohit and Davender Chawla, who went towards Umra Road, Hansi. Though Sudesh Yadav was associated during investigation of the case but the prosecution opted not to examine him as a witness and he was given up by the prosecution as having being won over. Sudesh Yadav was a material witness to provide a material link that Sanjeev @ Goga was left at Barsi Gate by him in the company of Davender Chawla and Mohit. Withholding of the best and material evidence, shatters the basic version of prosecution. Sudesh Yadav was a material witness to provide a material link that Sanjeev @ Goga was left at Barsi Gate by him in the company of Davender Chawla and Mohit. Withholding of the best and material evidence, shatters the basic version of prosecution. So in the given circumstances, last seen theory also fails to connect either of the appellants with the commission of murder of Sanjeev @ Goga. 13. Next submission made by learned counsel for the appellants is that there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution that the appellants hatched a conspiracy to eliminate Sanjeev @ Goga. Even statement of PW1 Surender Kumar, who can be termed to be a star witness of the prosecution is absolutely silent with regard to role of Ramesh Kumar @ Bori and Ashwani Kumar, who have already been granted the benefit of doubt by ld. trial court. Statement of PW1 Surender Kumar, in the absence of examination of Sudesh Yadav, is also nothing but hearsay. So, it cannot be inferred that the deceased, appellants and Sudesh Yadav, consumed liquor in a hotel. Nothing has also emerged with regard to the consumption of liquor during autopsy of the dead body of Sanjeev @ Goga. 14. It has further been stressed by learned counsel for the appellants that there is no recovery of any incriminating article or article connecting appellant Mohit with the crime except his disclosure statement, on the basis of which, he pointed out the place of occurrence. The death of Sanjeev @ Goga occurred due to fire arm injuries as opined by PW4 Dr. Rajnish Sehgal. 15. The prosecution has also not been able to prove its case against Davender Chawla. He was already in custody in some other case when he was formally arrested in the instant case. He is alleged to have suffered a disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof got recovered a 12 bore country made pistol, which was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory but the reports received from Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PEE and Ex.PFF, are suggestive of the fact that the weapon was not in a working condition. So, it cannot be said that the injuries were caused on the person of Sanjeev @ Goga with the said weapon. So, it cannot be said that the injuries were caused on the person of Sanjeev @ Goga with the said weapon. The non-examination of Sudesh Yadav and reports of Forensic Science Laboratory put a serious dent in the case of prosecution and the chain of circumstances cannot be said to be complete to connect either of the appellants with the crime. 16. While concluding his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are not in accordance with evidence available on file and provisions of law. Therefore, both accused deserve the benefit of doubt and consequently acquittal by way of acceptance of the present appeal. 17. Learned State counsel while supporting impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, has submitted that the same are well reasoned and elaborative on each and every aspect. The evidence available on record conclusively proves the culpability of both the appellants and chain is complete to connect them with the crime. As such, appeal being without merits deserves to be dismissed. 18. We have given our thoughtful consideration on the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Undeniably, the case of the prosecution solely hinges on circumstantial evidence but before dealing with various circumstances and the evidence, it would be desirable to consider principles for upholding conviction of a person founded on circumstantial evidence. 18. We have given our thoughtful consideration on the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Undeniably, the case of the prosecution solely hinges on circumstantial evidence but before dealing with various circumstances and the evidence, it would be desirable to consider principles for upholding conviction of a person founded on circumstantial evidence. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra; AIR 1984 SC 1622 , Hon'ble Apex Court laid down five golden principles which constitute the “panchsheel” in respect of a case based on circumstantial evidence which the prosecution is obliged to establish to prove the culpability of a person as follows: “The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence: (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely 'may be' fully established, (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 19. In Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh andothers;1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, it was observed that when a case solely hinges upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy following tests: “(a) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (b) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (c) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (d) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” 20. In another case State of Goa vs. Pandurang Mohite, 2008, (16) SCC 714, similar, observations were made by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 21. The aforesaid view has been further reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the latest pronouncement captioned as Majenderan Langeswaran vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2013(7) SCC 192 . 22. So, in the light of the aforesaid settled principles, we have to see whether conclusion drawn by ld. trial Court is in accordance with evidence available on file. 23. Adverting to the facts of the case in hand, we are of the view that culpability of both the appellants is established from the circumstantial evidence adduced by prosecution which led to the commission of murder of Sanjeev @ Goga. There is a categoric statement of PW1 Surender Kumar as well as that of PW3 Sunil Kumar @ Bittu, who are the brothers of the deceased that on August 04, 2006 at about 6:00 p.m. both appellants accompanied by one Sudesh Yadav came to their house and took their brother Sanjeev @ Goga. Thereafter, they consumed liquor at a hotel and then Sudesh Yadav left Sanjeev @ Goga and the appellants at Barsi Gate, who went towards Umra Road, Hansi. Subsequent thereto, the whereabouts of the deceased were not known and ultimately his dead body was found lying in the canal. Thereafter, they consumed liquor at a hotel and then Sudesh Yadav left Sanjeev @ Goga and the appellants at Barsi Gate, who went towards Umra Road, Hansi. Subsequent thereto, the whereabouts of the deceased were not known and ultimately his dead body was found lying in the canal. DDR was got recorded by Surender Kumar in respect of the missing of his brother Sanjeev @ Goga and subsequently, it came to light that Sanjeev @ Goga was in the company of Mohit and Davender Chawla, appellants. Ultimately, it came to light that some occurrence took place at Canal Bridge, Umra Road, Hansi where Surender Kumar PW1 spotted blood lying in a large quantity besides a shoe of his brother. The matter was reported to the police. The police also made efforts to trace out the whereabouts of Sanjeev @ Goga on August 05, 2006 but finding no trace they returned. It was on the next day in the morning, the dead body of Sanjeev @ Goga was found lying in the canal at a distance of 1 k.m. from the Canal Bridge i.e. the place of occurrence. Apart from the statement of Surender Kumar PW1 and Sunil PW3, there is also a testimony of PW2 Naresh Kumar, who had seen and heard the appellants while talking to each other that Sanjeev @ Goga is to be killed. Subsequently, he came to know that the aforesaid persons has committed the murder of Sanjeev @ Goga. He identified them in the Court. There is ample evidence on record that Sanjeev @ Goga was last seen in the company of both the appellants and, thereafter his dead body was found lying in the canal. Here, it would be pertinent to mention that after the arrest of the appellant Davender Chawla in this case, he was subjected to custodial interrogation, during which, he suffered disclosure statement Ex.PT, in pursuance of which, he got recovered a 12 bore country made pistol wrapped in a polythene near a tree in the premises of Dharamshala at Haridawar. Prior to it, at the time of spot inspection beside a shoe of deceased Sanjeev @ Goga, an empty cartridge was also recovered. Empty cartridge as well as a country made pistol recovered at the instance of the appellant Davender Chawla, were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. As per report Ex. Prior to it, at the time of spot inspection beside a shoe of deceased Sanjeev @ Goga, an empty cartridge was also recovered. Empty cartridge as well as a country made pistol recovered at the instance of the appellant Davender Chawla, were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. As per report Ex. PEE though the firing mechanism of the pistol was not found in working order as its main spring was found missing and its grip was found broken, however, it was observed that a country made pistol W/1 had been fired through. Though scientifically, the time of its last firing could not be ascertained, the pallets and wad recovered from the body of the deceased and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which were found to be fired lead bullets, which are usually loaded in shot gun cartridges including 12 bore. So, there is every possibility that after the commission of murder of Sanjeev @ Goga, appellant Davender Chawla broke its grip or detached its main spring. The recovery of pistol at the instance of appellant Davender Chawla, recovery of spent cartridge from the spot and further that deceased was found dead after he was taken away from his house are the material circumstances which complete the chain and connects the appellant Davender Chawla with the crime. 24. As far as appellant Mohit is concerned, he also accompanied his co-appellant Davender Chawla to the house of the deceased, took him from his house and thereafter dead body of Sanjeev @ Goga was found lying in the canal. Besides it, he also suffered a disclosure statement with regard to his involvement Ex.PR, in pursuance of which, he pointed out the place of occurrence Ex.PL. Moreover, nothing has come on record from the side of either of the appellants showing their false implication at the instance of the complainant. Similarly, there is also nothing on record to suggest that there was any animosity or illwill of the police officials with either of the appellants to involve them falsely in the instant case. 25. Moreover, nothing has come on record from the side of either of the appellants showing their false implication at the instance of the complainant. Similarly, there is also nothing on record to suggest that there was any animosity or illwill of the police officials with either of the appellants to involve them falsely in the instant case. 25. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that if the criminal case was pending in between the deceased Sanjeev @ Goga and the appellant Davender Chawla, the complainant or his brother should not have allowed Sanjeev @ Goga to accompany them suffice is to say that at that time neither the complainant nor his brother anticipated any untoward incident and no suspicion arose from the conduct or behaviour or the manner in which they visited the house. It only emanated from the subsequent acts and circumstances that it was due to criminal litigation that Sanjeev @ Goga was murdered and his dead body thrown in the canal. Moreover, to establish motive, it is generally an impossible task to state precisely to what have prompted or impelled the murderer to eliminate a particular person. All that the prosecution can putforth a possible ill will or animosity, which was existing or earlier existed. Even otherwise by now, it is pretty settled that inability of the prosecution to prove the motive to the hilt even in a case resting on circumstantial evidence is not fatal. 26. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the material witness namely Sudesh Yadav has not been examined by the prosecution, is without any legal substance. He was associated during the investigation of this case as he also accompanied the appellants to the house of the deceased on August 04, 2006. During the course of evidence, he was summoned but since he was prevailed upon by the appellants, he was given up by the prosecution as having being won over. No doubt, he could have thrown some light on the prosecution case but as he sided with the appellants, he was not examined. During the course of evidence, he was summoned but since he was prevailed upon by the appellants, he was given up by the prosecution as having being won over. No doubt, he could have thrown some light on the prosecution case but as he sided with the appellants, he was not examined. Moreover, it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine every witness relating to certain occurrence when their names are not concealed and the accused thinks that any of them can help him, he can as well requests the Court to summon him but in the case in hand, either of the appellants did not opt for it. The mere fact that Sudesh Yadav has not been examined, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside and the probative value of other witness is not at all affected. In the present case, even in the absence of the examination of Sudesh Yadav, the case stands fully proved and the prosecution has been able to connect both the appellants with the commission of the murder of Sanjeev @ Goga and ld. trial court has rightly concluded. 27. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the appellants have failed to establish any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. There is also no reason to take a different view than the view adopted by ld. trial court. 28. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed whereby the impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2008 and order of sentence dated 10.12.2008, are upheld.