JUDGMENT : Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. 1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the accused appellant-Ramkrishna @ Anna through jail assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Cases, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 22/2017, State of Rajasthan through Special Public Prosecutor Vs. Ramkrishna @ Anna, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted by the trial court for the following offence:- Offence under Section Sentence Fine In default of payment of fine 302 IPC Life Imprisonment 5,000/- One month additional rigorous imprisonment 2. Briefly stated the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are noted here below:- “PW12-Sajan submitted an oral report with the SHO, Police Station Vidhayak Puri, District Jaipur (South) on 23.12.2016 at 10:30 PM alleging inter alia that he is resident of Village Mandrela, Police Station Mandrela, District Jhunjhunu. He has come from the village 30-40 years ago. After coming to Jaipur, he is earning his livelihood by collecting and selling plastic wastage and he used to get the food from the persons who distribute in front of Amrapura place. Today i.e. on 23.12.2016 at about 8.30 in the night, he along with his companion Kalu and Kishan were having food on the footpath near K.S. Motors, towards Government Hostel Chauraha, where one person came towards Amrapura Temple near Bus Stand and he after pushing one person on the ground gave beating to him from the stone. When he saw then he came to know that he was Anna, whom they knew for the last seven to eight years and he also used to sleep along with them at Amrapura. He was having stone in his hand. When he came near them then he attacked the beggar (the other person) who was sleeping on the footpath from the stone, due to which the blood started oozing out from his head and mouth. Due to the fear they ran in the side. Anna after giving beating also ran away. When they saw that person then they found him as dead. During the aforesaid period, the Police came and both the beggars were taken in different ambulances to the hospital. Afterwards, he came to know that the injured person, who was near Amrapura, also expired. Anna after giving beating also ran away. When they saw that person then they found him as dead. During the aforesaid period, the Police came and both the beggars were taken in different ambulances to the hospital. Afterwards, he came to know that the injured person, who was near Amrapura, also expired. He does not know the name and address of both the persons who have expired. Both these persons used to beg near Amrapura.” 3. On the basis of aforesaid oral report, an FIR No. 368/2016 dated 23.12.2016 (Ex.P13) was registered at Police Station Vidhayak Puri, District Jaipur (South) for the offence under section 302 IPC. 4. After conducting investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC. As the case was Session’s triable, the same was committed to the trial Court, for trial. The trial Court framed the charge against the accused appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited in total 31 documents to prove its case. Thereafter the accused appellant was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case which he denied and claimed to have falsely implicated in this case but in defence he did not produce any evidence. 5. After hearing arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and after appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court proceeded to convict the accused appellant as mentioned above vide impugned judgment dated 30.11.2018. 6. Hence, the instant criminal appeal. 7. Ms. Rajesh Kumari Kandwal, learned Amicus Curiae argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated. She argued that both the deceased persons were not known to the eye-witnesses and the post-mortems of both the deceased persons were conducted after a delay of 12 days and the finger prints of the accused appellant were not found on the stone recovered at his instance. She further urged that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive behind the crime. Lastly, she argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellant. Hence, the benefit of doubt should be given to him. 8. On the contrary, Ms. She further urged that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive behind the crime. Lastly, she argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellant. Hence, the benefit of doubt should be given to him. 8. On the contrary, Ms. Rekha Madnani, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed the submissions advanced by learned Amicus Curiae. Learned Additional Government Advocate urged that the incident occurred on 23.12.2016 at 8.30 PM in the night and without the loss of time, the FIR (Ex.P13) was lodged by the eye-witness PW12Sajan within two hours mentioning the names of other two eyewitnesses as PW13-Kalu alias Deepak and PW14-Kishan Singh. The Police reached on the spot immediately after the occurrence and found the dead bodies of both the deceased persons lying there. It has also been urged by the learned Additional Government Advocate that PW12-Sajan has been examined by the trial Court along with two other eye-witnesses namely PW13Kalu alias Deepak and PW14-Kishan Singh, who have categorically stated that they have witnessed the incident and they have seen that the present appellant has committed the murder of both the deceased persons by causing injuries with a stone. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that PW6-Dr. Gyanprakash Gaur and PW11-Dr. Dhruv Singh conducted post-mortem of both the deceased persons and they prepared the post-mortem reports which are Ex. P15 and Ex.P27 and they opined that the cause of death of both the deceased persons was “coma” brought about as a result of the injuries which were ante-mortem in nature. She further submitted that as per the FSL report (Ex.P24), human blood was found on the clothes of the accused appellant and of both the deceased persons as well as on the stone which was recovered at the instance of the accused appellant vide seizure memos (Ex.P4) & (Ex.P5), which was proved by the witnesses Amar Singh (PW1) and Raj Kumar (PW2). Lastly, she argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellant. Hence, the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant. Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. 10. Lastly, she argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellant. Hence, the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant. Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and perused the impugned judgment and the material available on record. 11. PW12-Sajan has specifically stated in his statement that about 1½ – 2 years ago at about 8-8.30 PM he was sitting on the footpath near Government Hostel Chauraha. Kishan (PW14) and Kalu (PW13) were also sitting with him. At that time a person came in a vehicle and asked them to have food. Accused Anna also came there after assaulting a person with a stone. This witness has stated that he did not know the name of the person to whom accused Anna has caused the injury but this witness has stated that the deceased used to live at the same footpath approximately for the last 20 years. Anna also inflicted stone blow on another person who was sleeping. He did not know the name of that person also and that person used to do the work of labour (Beldari) at Chandpole but he used to come there for having food. This witness has further stated that after causing injuries to both these persons, the accused Anna went towards Chandpole. Thereafter the vehicle of Police Station Vidhayak Puri came there. Both these persons who sustained injuries died and the Police took them to the SMS Hospital. Thereafter the Police arrested the accused appellant from Chandpole. He further stated that on his oral information, the Police registered the FIR (Ex.P13), where he put his thumb impression at the place marked as ‘X’. 12. This witness was cross-examined but his testimony remained unshaken. Apart from this witness, PW13-Kalu alias Deepak and PW14-Kishan Singh were also the eye-witnesses and both of them have also corroborated the statement of the informant/complainant PW12-Sajan and all of them categorically stated that the accused appellant has assaulted both the deceased persons by causing injuries on their person by stone. 13. PW13 Kalu @ Deepak has stated in his examination-in-chief that he, accused and several persons were residing at the footpath near Government Hostel. 13. PW13 Kalu @ Deepak has stated in his examination-in-chief that he, accused and several persons were residing at the footpath near Government Hostel. He has stated that about one and half/two years back he saw the accused fighting with other person and the accused threw him in a pit (Gadhdha) and inflicted injury on his head by ‘stone’. Then this accused came towards them with stone and caused injury on the head of another person by the stone who was sleeping on the footpath. Then the accused flew towards Chandpole. He further stated that these two persons died due to the injuries caused by the accused by ‘stone’. 14. Similar statement has been given by PW14 Kishan Singh. In his Court statement, he deposed that the accused Anna came towards them after causing injury by stone to one person. 15. Then, the accused caused head injury to the other person sleeping on the footpath. Both these persons died due to the injuries caused by the accused by stone. These witnesses have identified both the deceased by seeing their photographs Ex.P29 and Ex.P30 and all these witnesses have categorically stated that these two deceased persons are the same persons to whom the accused ‘Anna’ has caused head injuries. 16. The evidence of these three eye-witnesses namely; PW12 Sajan, PW13 Kalu @ Deepak and PW14 Kishan Singh has remained unimpeachable. We have not found any inconsistency between their statements and the medical evidence. These witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined on each and every aspect pointed out by the defence. However, they have fully supported the case of the prosecution. We are of the firm opinion that these three eye-witnesses are trustworthy and reliable witnesses. Their presence at the time of incident with the accused and the deceased has been established and proved by the prosecution. There may be some minor contradictions, which do not go to the root of the matter and/or such contradictions are not material contradictions. Thus, the evidence of such witnesses cannot be brushed aside and/or disbelieved. Their testimony has remained unshaken in cross-examination. 17. Post-mortem of both the deceased persons was conducted by a Medical Board at SMS Hospital vide post-mortem reports Ex.P15 and Ex.P27 by PW6-Dr. Gyanprakash Gaur and PW11-Dr. Dhruv Singh, who found following injuries on their person respectively:- 18. Thus, the evidence of such witnesses cannot be brushed aside and/or disbelieved. Their testimony has remained unshaken in cross-examination. 17. Post-mortem of both the deceased persons was conducted by a Medical Board at SMS Hospital vide post-mortem reports Ex.P15 and Ex.P27 by PW6-Dr. Gyanprakash Gaur and PW11-Dr. Dhruv Singh, who found following injuries on their person respectively:- 18. Post-mortem Report (Ex.P15) of unidentified deceased, aged 40 years:- “(1) Lacerated wound of size 7 x 2 cm bone deep with dried blood over mid parietal region. (2) Lacerated wound of size 4 x 2 cm bone deep with dried blood over (L) side eye brow region. On dissection, diffuse sub scalp hematoma over bilatr fronto-parieto-temporal region with multiple fracture of bilatr fronto-parieto-temporal bone c diffuse EDH over bilatr parieto-temporal-region c torn dura at places with multiple contusion of ranging size at places. (3) Lacerated wound of size 2 x 1 cm muscle deep with dried blood with deformity over (L) elbow region. On further, there is # of lower end of humerus bone with hematoma. (4) Lacerated wound of size 2½ x ½ cm muscle deep with dried blood over (R) side cheek region. (5) Bruise of size 4½ x 1½ cm bluish in colour over (L) side mid clavicular chest region.” Post-mortem Report (Ex.P27) of another unidentified deceased, aged 55 years:- “(1) Lacerated wound of size 6 x 1 ½ cm. muscle deep with dried blood over (L) side forehead above eyebrow region. (2) Lacerated wound of size 2 ½ x ½ cm. muscle deep with dried blood over (R) side latr aspect of forehead region. (3) Lacerated wound of size 4 ½ x ½ cm. through and through with dried blood over (R) side canthus region. (4) Bruise of size 3 ½ x 1 ½ cm. bluish in colour over (R) side leg U/3 outer aspect. On dissection, diffuse sub scalp hematoma over (L) side fronto parietal, occipital region and (R) frontal region. On further, dura B tense c diffuse EDH over (L) frontal region and (R) parieto occipital region with multiple contusion of ranging size over places.” 19. Amar Singh (PW1) and Raj Kumar (PW2) are the witnesses of recovery of stones (Ex.P4) and recovery of stone and clothes of the accused (Ex.P5) at the instance of the accused appellant. 20. On further, dura B tense c diffuse EDH over (L) frontal region and (R) parieto occipital region with multiple contusion of ranging size over places.” 19. Amar Singh (PW1) and Raj Kumar (PW2) are the witnesses of recovery of stones (Ex.P4) and recovery of stone and clothes of the accused (Ex.P5) at the instance of the accused appellant. 20. After carefully scrutinizing the evidence available on record, this Court does not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae that there was no motive of the accused appellant to commit murder of both the deceased persons. It is well settled law that at the time of committing an offence motive is not sine qua non. When ocular evidence is clear and convincing and the role of the accused person in committing the crime is established beyond all manner of doubt, the establishment of motive is not sine qua non for proving the case of the prosecution. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yunis @ Kariya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 2003 SC 539 held that where the direct evidence regarding the assault is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. If the evidence of witness is credit worthy then the question whether there is any motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant. Motive is a thing primarily known to the accused himself and it may not be possible for the prosecution in each and every case to find out the real motive behind the crime. 21. In the instant case also, there is ample evidence on the record to establish that the appellant was having stones with him at the time of the occurrence and he assaulted on the vital parts of both the deceased persons from his hand repeatedly with an intention and knowledge to commit their murder. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pruthiviraj Jayantibhai Vanol Vs. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala & others in Criminal Appeal No. 177/2014 decided on 26.07.2001 held as under:- “17. Ocular evidence is considered the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it. The evidence of PW2 and PW10 is unimpeachable. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pruthiviraj Jayantibhai Vanol Vs. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala & others in Criminal Appeal No. 177/2014 decided on 26.07.2001 held as under:- “17. Ocular evidence is considered the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it. The evidence of PW2 and PW10 is unimpeachable. It is only in a case where there is a gross contradiction between medical evidence and oral evidence, and the medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable and rules out all possibility of ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. In the present case, we find no inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence. The High Court grossly erred in appreciation of evidence by holding that muddamal no.5 was a simple iron rod without noticing the evidence that it had a sharp turn edge. 18. The aforesaid discussion leads us to the conclusion that the acquittal by the High Court is based on misappreciation of the evidence and the overlooking of relevant evidence thereby arriving at a wrong conclusion. It is not a case where two views are possible or the credibility of the witnesses is in doubt. Neither is it a case of a solitary uncorroborated witness. The conclusion of the High Court is therefore held to be perverse and irrational. The acquittal is therefore held to be unsustainable and is set aside. In the nature of the assault, Section 304 Part II, IPC has no application. The conviction of respondent nos. 1 to 4 by the Trial Court is restored.” 23. There is no force in the arguments of learned Amicus Curiae that both the deceased persons were not known to the eye-witnesses namely; PW12-Sajan (informant/complainant), PW13-Kalu alias Deepak and PW14-Kishan Singh. Right from the beginning, the case of the prosecution was that both the deceased persons were earning their livelihood by begging and in the night they used to sleep on the footpath. Identification of both the deceased persons by their names, is not a vital thing which would discard the testimony of these witnesses. This fact is not in dispute, that the accused appellant was known to these witnesses in whose presence the accused appellant committed the murder of both the deceased persons. Identification of both the deceased persons by their names, is not a vital thing which would discard the testimony of these witnesses. This fact is not in dispute, that the accused appellant was known to these witnesses in whose presence the accused appellant committed the murder of both the deceased persons. The evidence of these eye-witnesses namely; PW12-Sajan (informant/complainant), PW13-Kalu alias Deepak and PW14-Kishan Singh clearly indicates the intention and the knowledge of the accused appellant to cause death of both the deceased persons. The other witnesses namely; PW1 Amar Singh, PW2 Rajkumar, PW3 Ramgopal, PW4 Nanulal and PW5 Anil Kumar, have supported the prosecution case to the hilt. The evidence of the eye-witnesses namely; PW12-Sajan (informant/complainant), PW13-Kalu alias Deepak and PW14Kishan Singh is fully corroborated by the evidence of PW6 Dr. Gyanprakash Gaur and PW11 Dr. Dhruv Singh, the post mortem reports Ex.P15 and Ex.P27 and the FSL Report Ex.P24. The injuries caused by the accused appellant to both the deceased persons have been proved by PW6 Dr. Gyanprakash Gaur and PW11 Dr. Dhruv Singh and also by the post mortem reports (Ex.P15 and Ex.P27). Thus, the medical evidence and the ocular testimony wholly corroborate each other. The minor contradictions and the absence of motive, do not affect the case of the prosecution. 24. In wake of the discussion made here-in-above, we are of the firm view that the trial court has appreciated the evidence available on the record in an apropos manner and rightly held the accused appellant guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 IPC. The impugned judgment dated 30.11.2018 passed by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity so as to warrant interference of this Court. 25. Hence, this criminal appeal fails and is thus dismissed as being devoid of merit. 26. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.