JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. Aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 15th of February, 2008 and Order of sentence dated 20th February, 2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Giridih in Session Trial No.399 of 2004, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court. The sole appellant has been convicted by the impugned Judgment of conviction for committing offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of one Tul Bahadur Magar. He stated that he is working as an orderly at Railway Hospital, Sariya. His daughters, namely, Kimmi Kumari, Rashmi Kumari and Monu Kumari used to go at the residence of Dr. Binod Kumar for studying. Whenever the doctor used to go out of station, these girls used to stay back in his house and used to sleep there. On the night at about 00.15 hrs. his younger daughter Monu Kumari came screaming. The informant, then went to the quarters of Dr. Binod Kumar and saw that his elder daughter Kimmi Kumari in injured condition and his second daughter Rashmi breathed her last in front of him after sustaining injury. He then inquired from his elder daughter about the occurrence, when she said that at about 11 O’clock when they were sleeping, Amarjeet came. Amarjeet with a handkerchief was pressing her mouth, then her two sisters and the son of maid woke up. Then Amarjeet left Kimmi Kumari and assaulted Rashmi Kumari with knife and injured her. Kimmi Kumari also sustained injures. When the informant reached at the place of occurrence, he saw the appellant fleeing away, whom he identified. 3. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, FIR being Bagodar (Sariya) Police Station Case No.193 of 2004 was registered under Sections 302, 326, 307, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against this appellant and others, namely, Ranjit Ram, Devendra Ram and Prem Shankar Ram. Cognizance was taken of the offence and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against this appellant and others, namely, Ranjit Ram, Devendra Ram and Prem Shankar Ram. Cognizance was taken of the offence and the case was committed to the Court of Session. One of the accused, namely, Devendra was found to be juvenile, as such, his case was separated. Charge for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120B was framed against this appellant and against the other accused charge was framed under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. As the accused persons claimed innocence, they were put to trial. 4. To prove the charge, 14 witnesses were produced and examined in this case by the prosecution. P.W.1 Kimmi Kumari is one of the victim of the occurrence and was present at the time of commission of murder of Rashmi Kumari, the deceased; P.W.2 Sayad Md. Kaishar is the Pharmacist of Railway Hospital, Sariya; P.W.3 Dr. Binod Kumar is the person in whose quarters occurrence had taken place; P.W.4 Pravesh Kumar is the son of the maid who also used to stay back in the quarters with the deceased, victim and their another sister; P.W.5 is Jeera Devi; P.W.6 Ashok Mandal is the private driver who drove the police vehicle from Sariya Police Station to Jhumritilaiya from where accused Amarjeet Anand was arrested and blood stained shirt and pant were recovered; P.W.7 Sapan Ghosh is the witness to the inquest report; P.W.8 Monu Kumari Magar is the sister of the deceased and P.W.1 who was also sleeping at the place of occurrence and is an eye witness; P.W.9 Dr. B.N. Das is the doctor who conducted autopsy of the body of the deceased; P.W.10 Tul Bahadur Magar is the father of the deceased and informant of this case; P.W.11 is Om Prakash Choubey; P.W.12 Dr. B. Das Gupta is the doctor who treated the injured at the time of her admission in the hospital and under whose supervision the injury report was prepared; P.W. 13 Jitendra Dubey is the investigating officer of this case; P.W.14 Santosh Kumar is the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih, who has recorded the statement of Monu Kumari @ Monu Magar and Pravesh Kumar under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which were marked Exhibits 4/A and 2/A respectively. 5. 5. The prosecution also produced documentary evidence in this case, which are as under:- Exhibit-1: Signature of P.W.1 on her statement dated 16.08.2004 at 09.40 a.m. recorded at Railway Hospital, Dhanbad in Female Ward at Bed No.26; Exhibit-2: Signature of Pravesh Kumar on Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Exhibit-2/A: Statement of Pravesh Kumar under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Exhibit 3 Inquest Report Exhibit-4: Signature of Monu Magar on her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Exhibit-4/A: Statement of Monu Magar under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Exhibit-5: Postmortem Report Exhibit-6: Fardbeyan Exhibit-7: Injury Report Exhibit-8: F.I.R. Exhibit-9: Seizure List dated 13.08.2004 Exhibit-10: Application dated 20.09.2004 filed by the investigating officer/Officer-in-Charge of Sariya P.S. for correction in Seizure List 6. After closure of the evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused did not choose to lead evidence. 7. The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence and after hearing the arguments of the appellants, by the impugned Judgment of conviction, convicted this appellant for committing offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It is pertinent to mention here that the other two accused persons were acquitted. 8. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence, this appellant has preferred this appeal. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. for the State and have perused the records of the case. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is no evidence against the appellant to convict him under Section 302 or Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that in fact, the informant is not the eye-witness to the occurrence and he is merely an hearsay witness and is not reliable one. He submits that the other witnesses, i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.8 are highly interested witnesses being the own sisters of the deceased, as such, there is an element of doubt on what they are narrating before the Court. He submits that the other witnesses, i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.8 are highly interested witnesses being the own sisters of the deceased, as such, there is an element of doubt on what they are narrating before the Court. It is further submitted that none of the witnesses has stated as to how the appellant had entered the house at the dead night, which, in fact, creates a doubt about the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence. It is submitted that the alleged knife, weapon of offence, has not been produced before the Court, which weakens the prosecution case. It is also submitted that neither in the FIR nor in the evidence of any of the witnesses, the motive has been alleged. He submits that there was no motive for the said murder and prosecution has failed to establish any motive for the said murder. In absence of motive, this appellant cannot be held guilty. It is submitted that there are vital contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, thus, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, as such the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 11. Learned A.P.P. submits that there are three eye witnesses to the occurrence and there is nothing in their evidence to doubt their credibility. It is submitted that the informant has also seen the appellant, fleeing from the place of occurrence, which substantiates the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence, which cannot be doubted. It is also submitted that the documentary evidence and oral evidence are clear to suggest that the appellant has committed the murder of the deceased and attempt was made to murder P.W.1. Thus, the appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced. 12. As stated earlier, there are 14 prosecution witnesses in this case. P.W.1 is Kimmi Kumari. She is an eye witness and sister of the deceased. She was with the deceased when the occurrence had taken place. She stated that on the date of occurrence, they went to the house of Dr. Binod Kumar and after the studies, they all slept there. She stated that at night she heard some noise and woke up and lit the torch, when she saw the appellant. She was with the deceased when the occurrence had taken place. She stated that on the date of occurrence, they went to the house of Dr. Binod Kumar and after the studies, they all slept there. She stated that at night she heard some noise and woke up and lit the torch, when she saw the appellant. She saw Amarjeet and she recognised him, Amarjeet placed a knife on her neck and she was taken to another room. Then this witness called her sister Rashmi Kumari and she came. Amarjeet then locked the door from inside and assaulted this witness on her neck. It is pertinent to mention here that at this point the witness showed the scar of her injury on her neck to the Court. Thereupon Amarjeet gave knife blow on neck and head of Rashmi Kumari, who came to save her. Rashmi Kumari got injured, fell down and died instantaneously. Monu, thereafter, went and informed the informant Amarjeet Kumar then fled away. She stated that they had no friendship with Amarjeet, but, seldom they used to talk. 13. P.W.2 is Sayad Md. Kaishar. He is the Pharmacist of the Railway Hospital. He deposed that he was at quarters and at night he heard the voice of Bahadur’s wife. When he came out, he heard screams from the house of Dr. Binod and he went there, then saw Rashmi Kumari lying dead in the pool of blood and Kimmi Kumari was seriously injured. He saw the daughter of Bahadur in an injured condition and blood was oozing out from her neck. This witness immediately got the first aid box and tied the wound with cloth and they all rushed her to Dhanbad Railway Hospital by Jodhpur Express. The injured was then treated in the Railway Hospital. This witness further said that on the next day when he returned, the youngest daughter of Tul Bahadur and another boy Pravesh Kumar had stated that this appellant is the perpetrator of the crime. In his cross examination, there is nothing much in favour of the defence. 14. P.W.3 is Dr. Binod Kumar. He stated that he received information from P.W.2 that Bahadur's daughter has been killed in his quarters. He stated that Kimmi Kumari, Rashmi Kumari, Monu Kumari and Pravesh Kumar were in the house when Rashmi Kumari was murdered and Kimmi Kumari was seriously injured. 14. P.W.3 is Dr. Binod Kumar. He stated that he received information from P.W.2 that Bahadur's daughter has been killed in his quarters. He stated that Kimmi Kumari, Rashmi Kumari, Monu Kumari and Pravesh Kumar were in the house when Rashmi Kumari was murdered and Kimmi Kumari was seriously injured. On receiving this information, he returned from his in-law's place to Dhanbad. Then Bahadur (informant) informed that Amarjeet had murdered Rashmi Kumari and injured Kimmi Kumari. The police had recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He stated that when they used to go out, these children used to stay in his house. This witness also identified the accused. He was given a suggestion that many boys of the locality used to roam around these girls to which he showed his ignorance. 15. P.W.4 is Pravesh Kumar, who is also an eye witness. He stated that on hearing the voice of Kimmi Kumari, he woke up and saw that Amarjeet was assaulting Kimmi Kumari. Rashmi went to save her and then Amarjeet gave knife blows to Rashmi Kumari, as a result of which Rashmi Kumari died. Thereafter this witness went to informant and gave him information. The informant came to the place of occurrence and at that point of time Amarjeet fled from the place. Thereafter Kimmi Kumari was taken to Station and by Jodhpur Express, she was taken to Dhanbad for treatment. He also stated that he has given the statement before the police. He also admitted that his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He proved his signature on statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. which was marked as Exhibit 2. He stated that when doctor saheb used to go out, he and the girls used to stay in his house. He stated that on that day, he was sleeping on the floor and all three girls were sleeping on the cot. He stated that on hearing screams of Kimmi Didi he woke up and saw the entire incident. He reiterated that he fled and informed Bahadur Uncle and brought him and when he reached there, Amarjeet was there and when the informant Bahadur came, Amarjeet fled. He stated that Bahadur also saw Amarjeet fleeing away from the place of occurrence. There is nothing more in his evidence. 16. P.W.5 is Jeera Devi. She, on hearing scream from the house of Dr. He stated that Bahadur also saw Amarjeet fleeing away from the place of occurrence. There is nothing more in his evidence. 16. P.W.5 is Jeera Devi. She, on hearing scream from the house of Dr. Binod Kumar came out and saw Rashmi Kumari dead and Kimmi Kumari in an injured condition as she sustained injury on her neck. She stated that blood was oozing out from the said wound. She stated that her son told her that Amarjeet had committed murder. She stated that she had given her statement before the police. She also identified the accused. 17. P.W.6 is Ashok Mandal, who stated that on 13.08.2004, they went to Jhumritilaiya in the in-law's house of Amarjeet where Amarjeet was found and he was arrested. Blood stained shirt-pant were recovered from there, which was seized and seizure list was prepared. This witness was the driver of the vehicle. He also gave the registration number of the vehicle, which was driven by him. He also stated in his cross examination that the father of Amarjeet accompanied them to identify the house of his in-laws. 18. P.W.7 is Sapan Ghosh. He says that in his presence the inquest report was prepared. He stated that he and Nakul had signed the inquest report. He has identified the inquest report, which was marked Exhibit 3. He stated that he had cursorily gone through the inquest report. 19. P.W.8, Monu Kumari is another sister of the deceased and also an eye witness to the occurrence. She supported the statement in the FIR and stated in the same line as stated by P.W.1 and P.W.4. There is no discrepancy in her statement as she stated that she and her sisters along with P.W.4 were sleeping in the house of Dr. Binod Kumar when this appellant attacked P.W.1 Kimmi Kumari and when Kimmi Kumari shouted, Rashmi Kumari went to save her, but Rashmi was also assaulted resulting in her death. 20. P.W.9, Dr. B.N. Das is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination of the deceased. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased:- A. Punctured wound 1” x 1 ½” x chest cavity deep on the left side base of the neck. B. Punctured wound 1” x 1 ½” x 3” on left side upper portion of the chest 2 inches below injury No.1. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased:- A. Punctured wound 1” x 1 ½” x chest cavity deep on the left side base of the neck. B. Punctured wound 1” x 1 ½” x 3” on left side upper portion of the chest 2 inches below injury No.1. C. Punctured wound 1” x 1 ½” x 2” on left side middle portion of neck. D. Punctured wound 1” x 1 ½” x 2 ½” on right lateral side of neck. E. Punctured wound ¾” x 1” x 2” on right side upper portion of neck. F Punctured wound 1 ½” x 2” x chest cavity deep posteriorily on right side upper portion of neck. G. Punctured wound 1 ½” x 2” x chest cavity deep posteriorily right side upper portion of back. H. Incised wound 1” x ½” x bone deep on right lateral side of chest. I. Incised wound 1” x ½” x bone deep on left shoulder. J. Stabbed wound 1 1/2” x 2” x chest cavity deep posteriorily on left side lower portion of chest. K. Incised wound 1” x 1 ½” x bone deep posteriorily over left arm. On dissection of the body, following was found:- Skull and brain NAD. Larynx and trachea punctured. Hyoid bone intact. Subcutaneous tissue of neck NAD. Ribs intact. Both side lungs ruptured. Chest cavity was full of blood. Spleen and kidney congested. Stomach contained partially digested food without any peculiar smell. Urinary bladder empty. Uterous small and non gravid. The cause of death was opined as hemorrhage, which led to shock because of the ante mortem injuries. 21. P.W.10 is the informant Tul Bahadur Magar, who stated that on the date of occurrence at night, he was in his quarters, when suddenly his daughter Monu Kumari and Pravesh Kumar came screaming and informed him that Amarjeet is assaulting Kimmi Kumari. When they reached at the place of occurrence, they saw Amarjeet fleeing from the house with a knife in his hand. When he went inside he saw Kimmi Kumari lying in injured condition and Rashmi Kumari already dead. On his screams, S.M. Kaishar, wife of the informant, came there and they after dressing the wounds of Kimmi Kumari took her to Station and from there by Jodhpur Express went to Dhanbad Railway Hospital, where the injured was treated. When he went inside he saw Kimmi Kumari lying in injured condition and Rashmi Kumari already dead. On his screams, S.M. Kaishar, wife of the informant, came there and they after dressing the wounds of Kimmi Kumari took her to Station and from there by Jodhpur Express went to Dhanbad Railway Hospital, where the injured was treated. He stated that he asked his daughter and Pravesh when they told that they were sleeping at night and hearing some noise, they woke up and saw Kimmi Kumari was being assaulted and when Rashmi tried to save her sister, Amarjeet assaulted Rashmi by knife as a result of which she died. He stated that his statement was recorded by the police and his signature is there on the fardbeyan. Exhibit-6 is his signature. He stated that he has told the police that Pravesh Kumar and Monu came and informed him about the incident. He confirmed the presence of P.W.2 at the place of occurrence. He stated that Amarjeet was residing in the same colony and they know each other. He denied the suggestion that the locality boys used to roam around her daughter. 22. P.W.11 is Om Prakash Choubey, who stated that at night when he heard screams, he went to the house of Dr. Binod Kumar where he saw several persons gathered, Compounder Kaishar Sahab (P.W.2) informed him that one murder had taken place and another one is in injured condition. The compounder told him that immediately one has to rush to the station and must stop the train. They went to the station. He identified the appellant. 23. P.W.12 is Dr. B. Dasgupta, who treated the injured (P.W.1) in Dhanbad. He found the injuries on her person:- 1. Incised wound of throat situated 1 ½” below the chin measuring 2 ½” x 1” over the floor of the mouth. 2. Incised wound across the crease of the neck 1 ½” above the upper border of sternum measuring 2” x 1 ¼” muscle deep. 3. Incised wound measuring 2” x ¼” x ½” over the course of the left external jugularvein. 4. Stabbed wound approx 1” x ¼” x ¾” situated just left to the thyroid cartilage. 5. Stabbed wound over the right shoulder joint ½” x ¼” muscle deep. He stated that all the injuries are fresh, i.e., within six hours and caused by sharp instrument. 4. Stabbed wound approx 1” x ¼” x ¾” situated just left to the thyroid cartilage. 5. Stabbed wound over the right shoulder joint ½” x ¼” muscle deep. He stated that all the injuries are fresh, i.e., within six hours and caused by sharp instrument. He proved injury report as Exhibit 7. He stated that the injury report was prepared by Dr. Manjur Alam, the House Surgeon, who was working under his supervision. He stated that since the patient was serious and other two doctors were engaged to save her life, thus, on verbal instructions, the report was prepared by the junior doctor. 24. P.W.13 is Jitendra Dubey, who is the investigating officer. He stated that at about 01.45 a.m. at night, he received information from Hazaribagh Railway Colony that a murder had taken place. He entered the said information in the Station Diary and proceeded to the place of occurrence. He recorded the fardbeyan and prepared the inquest report. He identified his signature and handwriting in the FIR. He, thereafter sent the body for postmortem. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. He also got the statement of Monu Kumari, Pravesh Kumar recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The formal FIR was marked as Exhibit 8. He gave the description of the place of occurrence along with its boundaries. He stated that the dead body was lying on the floor and there were two wooden cots. He stated that in the western side of the house, one bar of a window of a bathroom was found missing and door was shut. The bedroom was found bolted from inside and all the rooms were interconnected. He went to the in-laws' house of Amarjeet along with his father where he seized the shirt and pant, which had blood stains in it. He proved the seizure list and application for correction in seizure list as Exhibits 9 and 10. He also admitted that he arrested the accused from Jhumritilaiya, which is not within his jurisdiction, but he has not taken any local police officer with him nor he gave any information. He stated that he had prepared a rought map of the place of occurrence. 25. P.W.14 is Santosh Kumar. He was the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, posted at Giridih. He stated that he had prepared a rought map of the place of occurrence. 25. P.W.14 is Santosh Kumar. He was the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, posted at Giridih. He stated that he recorded the statement of Monu Kumari @ Monu Magar and Pravesh Kumar under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He identified those statements as Exhibits 4A and 2A. 26. From analysing the evidence led by the prosecution, we find that there are three eye witnesses. They are P.W.1 Kimmi Kumari, P.W.4 Pravesh Kumar and P.W.8 Monu Kumari. All these three witnesses are consistent in their evidence. They all in the same manner stated that when P.W.1 was attacked by the appellant, the deceased Rashmi Kumari went to save her and then this appellant gave stab blows to the deceased, resulting in her death. They also stated that P.W.1 sustained injuries on her neck and she was taken to Dhanbad Railway Hospital by train. They stated that the informant was informed, who rushed and at that point of time, the appellant was seen fleeing from the place of occurrence. From the evidence of these three prosecution witnesses, it is proved that this appellant had assaulted P.W.1 and thereafter when she was being tried to be saved by the deceased (Rashmi Kumari), the deceased was assaulted by knife. There is no discrepancy in their evidence. Informant, P.W.10 has stated that P.W.4 and P.W.8 came to him and informed about the occurrence and then he rushed to the place of occurrence and when he went there, he saw the appellant fleeing from the place of occurrence with a knife in his hand. This fact finds support from the evidence of P.W.4 also, who stated that when the informant reached the place of occurrence, he saw the appellant fleeing from the place of occurrence. P.W.1 stated that she was assaulted on her neck and showed the scar of her injuries to the Court. The doctor (P.W.12), who treated this P.W.1, found sharp cut injuries on her neck. P.W.2 is the pharmacist, who reached the place of occurrence immediately, he also said that he found injuries on the neck of P.W.1 and saw the deceased lying in the pool of blood. This witness accompanied the informant to Dhanbad by Jodhpur Express where P.W.1 was treated in Dhanbad Railway Hospital. P.W.2 is the pharmacist, who reached the place of occurrence immediately, he also said that he found injuries on the neck of P.W.1 and saw the deceased lying in the pool of blood. This witness accompanied the informant to Dhanbad by Jodhpur Express where P.W.1 was treated in Dhanbad Railway Hospital. The fact that these persons went to Dhanbad by Jodhpur Express is corroborated by the evidence of other prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has also proved that the Jodhpur Express did not have scheduled stoppage at the place, but, it was stopped on emergency so that P.W.1 Kimmi Kumari could be taken to Dhanbad. Other prosecution witnesses including Dr. Binod Kumar stated that these children including the deceased used to stay in his house at night when he went out of the town. The postmortem report clearly suggests that several blows was given by the appellant on the deceased. The doctor, who conducted the postmortem, also opined that death was due to shock and hemmeheorage (sic-hemorrhage?) because of the said assaults. All the injuries are punctured, incised and stabbed wounds, which proves the prosecution case that the deceased was stabbed and attacked with knife. The investigating officer and the P.W.6, who was the driver of the vehicle, stated that they went to Jhumritilaiya along with the father of this appellant and arrested the appellant from his in-laws’ place. The statement of P.W.6 is corroborated by the statement of the investigating officer. Thus, from analysing the evidence, we find that there are three eye witnesses to the said occurrence and the testimony of the prosecution witnesses are consistent and corroborated by the post occurrence witness, i.e., P.W. 2, P.W. 5, P.W. 7, P.W. 10. The medical evidence also corroborates the prosecution version and matches with the injuries as narrated by the witnesses. The presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence, committing the offence and thereafter fleeing from the place of occurrence was seen by the eye witnesses and P.W.10. There is no contradiction in the oral evidence of these witnesses. Thus, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove the involvement of this appellant in commission of the murder beyond any reasonable doubt. 27. So far as the motive is concerned, the same loses its significance in presence of three credible eye witnesses in this case. There is no contradiction in the oral evidence of these witnesses. Thus, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove the involvement of this appellant in commission of the murder beyond any reasonable doubt. 27. So far as the motive is concerned, the same loses its significance in presence of three credible eye witnesses in this case. As discussed and mentioned earlier, the statement of these eye witnesses are consistent, who state that this appellant has committed the murder of the deceased and caused injury on the neck of P.W.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. versus Kishanpal reported in (2008) 16 SCC 73 in paragraph 39 has held as under:- “39. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction.” 28. In this case we find that no motive has been assigned for the murder, but, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court even absence of motive, is of no consequence and it pales into insignificance in presence of the direct credible evidence, which is present in this case to establish the crime. In this case, as held earlier, there are direct trustworthy evidence of P.W.1 Kimmi Kumari, P.W.4 Pravesh Kumar and P.W.8 Monu Kumari, who are eye witnesses to the commission of the offence and in backdrop of the testimonies of these eyewitnesses, the motive loses its significance. 29. In this case, as held earlier, there are direct trustworthy evidence of P.W.1 Kimmi Kumari, P.W.4 Pravesh Kumar and P.W.8 Monu Kumari, who are eye witnesses to the commission of the offence and in backdrop of the testimonies of these eyewitnesses, the motive loses its significance. 29. Thus, from what has been discussed above, we find and hold that the Trial Court has correctly held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and while convicting him under the said Sections of the Indian Penal Code has correctly sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 30. This appeal, thus, is bereft of any merit, and is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment of the Trial Court is upheld. The appellant, who is already in custody, is to serve out the sentence. 31. Let the Lower Court Records be forthwith transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment. 32. The aforesaid I.A. No.4158 of 2017 filed by the appellant for granting bail also stands dismissed. H.C. Mishra, J.-I agree.