REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1247 of 2008

Bipin Kumar Mondal  …Appellant

Versus

State of West Bengal        …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and  

order dated 13th July,  2005, passed in Criminal  Appeal  No.  

352 of 2001 by the High Court of Calcutta, by which the High  

Court  dismissed  the  application  filed  by  the  appellant  and  

upheld the conviction and sentence passed by  the Trial Court  

in  Sessions  Trial  No.  4  of  2001  (State  Vs.  Bipin  Kumar  

Mondal)  under  Sections  302  and  307  of  the  Indian  Penal  

Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as the ‘IPC’).   

Factual Matrix :

2. Facts and circumstances  giving rise  to this  appeal  are  

that one Sujit Mondal, PW-1, lodged an Ejahar with Raninagar  

Police  Station  on  6.12.1999  stating  that  his  father  Bipin  

Kumar Mondal, appellant herein, came to their house at about  

midnight on 5.12.1999 and attacked his mother, Usha Rani  

Mondal,  with  a  knife  and  inflicted  severe  injuries  on  her  

person.  When  he  went  to  save  his  mother,  he  was  also  

attacked by his father. He received injuries on his head and  

hands and he had to escape out of fear.  His younger brother,  

Ajit  Mondal,  was  also  severely  injured  with  a  knife  by  his  

father. On hearing the hue and cry made by Sujit Mondal, PW-

1, his neighbours came and in the meantime his father ran  

away.  

3. On the basis of the said Ejahar, the police investigated  

the case and submitted the charge sheet against the appellant  

under Section 302/307 IPC. Appellant pleaded not guilty and  

hence, he was put to trial.  

2

4. In  support  of  its  case,  the  prosecution  examined  11  

witnesses to bring home the charge against the appellant.  An  

Ejahar  was  lodged  by  the  son  of  the  appellant  and  other  

witnesses had been close neighbours and relatives residing in  

the same village. The Trial Court considered the evidence of  

prosecution  witnesses  and  came  to  the  conclusion  that  

petition of complaint had been written by Saidul Islam, PW-10,  

on the instructions of Sujit Mondal, PW-1, and both of them  

supported the prosecution case in Court.  Saidul Islam, PW-

10,  was  a  resident  of  another  village  and  had  gone  to  

Raninagar  Public  Health  Centre   in  connection  with  the  

treatment of his relation and there he was requested by Sujit  

Mondal, PW-1, to write the said Ejahar (Exh.-1). Sujit Mondal,  

PW-1,  had  deposed  that  he  had  gone  to  the  same  Public  

Health Centre at Raninagar and was admitted for treatment  

for one day. The other witnesses who were close neighbours  

had supported the prosecution case and deposed that all  of  

them reached the place of occurrence after hearing the shouts  

by Sujit Mondal and when they reached there, they were told  

by Sujit Mondal, PW-1, that his father had killed his mother  

3

and  brother  and  inflicted  injuries  on  his  person.  After  

considering the entire evidence on record and taking it  into  

consideration along with the defence taken by the appellant,  

which had been only to the extent that he was innocent, the  

trial Court held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving  

its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the injuries on the  

person of Sujit Mondal, PW-1, were found not to be so serious  

and he has failed to produce any certificate from Raninagar  

Public Health Centre or any other proof that he was admitted  

there.  The appellant  was convicted under Sections 302 and  

323  IPC.  Thus,  he  was  awarded  the  sentence  of  life  

imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and 6 months’ RI under  

Section 323 IPC, however, it was held that both the sentences  

would  run  concurrently  vide  judgment  and  order  dated  

12.6.2001.  

5. The appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.352 of 2001,  

which has been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned  

judgment and order dated 13th July, 2002. Hence, this appeal.  

4

Rival Submissions :  

6. Shri Seeraj Bagga, learned Amicus Curiae, has submitted  

that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated  

in the crime.  Sujit Mondal, PW-1, was not sure as to who had  

committed the offence. There was no motive for committing the  

crime  and  the  weapon  with  which  the  offence  had  been  

committed has never been recovered. The depositions made by  

PWs 2 to 8, the so-called related persons or neighbours are  

merely  based  on  hearsay  as  none  of  them  had  seen  the  

commission of offence.  

7. There  are  material  contradictions  in  their  depositions.  

Dilip  Kumar,  PW-4, had deposed that when he reached the  

place of occurrence, Ajit Mondal died within a short time after  

his arrival.  However, none of the other witnesses have stated  

that when they reached the place of occurrence after hearing  

the hue and cry of Sujit Mondal, PW-1, Ajit Mondal was alive  

and had died after some time.  All the three persons had been  

sleeping in the same room which was open.  Therefore, it was  

possible  for  any  outsider  to  enter  into  the  house  and  the  

possibility that an outsider entered the house and committed  

5

the offence could not be ruled out.  The appellant was an anti-

social element and many persons had a grudge against him.  

So,  any other  person could  have  committed  the  crime.  The  

evidence to the effect that at the time of commission of offence,  

the lamp was burning and there was sufficient light, is also  

not  free  from doubt.   Therefore,  the  appeal  deserves  to  be  

allowed.  

8. On  the  contrary,  Shri  Avijit  Bhattacharjee,   learned  

counsel for the State, has opposed the appeal and vehemently  

submitted that Sujit Mondal, PW-1, had no doubt or suspicion  

in his mind that his father had committed the offence. The  

depositions made by PWs 2 to 8, who are close relatives and  

neighbours  who  had  reached  the  place  of  occurrence  

immediately  after  commission  of  the  offence,  cannot  be  

doubted as each of them has deposed before the Trial Court  

that Sujit  Mondal,  PW-1,  told them that the appellant,  his  

father has committed the crime.  The recovery of knife used in  

the  commission  of  offence  could  not  be  made  because  the  

appellant remained absconding for a long time. The conduct of  

6

the appellant i.e. absconding for a long time itself establishes  

the guilt of the appellant.  

9. All the witnesses had been put to cross-examination and  

nothing  has  been  obtained  to  seek  the  credence  of  the  

evidence of any of them. The appellant just pleaded innocence  

and  nothing  else.  He  did  not  even  disclose  as  under  what  

circumstances he had absconded from his family home and  

had been living somewhere else,  where he had been at  the  

time of commission of offence and why did he not attend any  

ritual i.e. funeral etc. of the victims if he was innocent.  The  

appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.  

10. We  have  considered  the  rival  submissions  made  by  

learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  

11. Sujit  Mondal,  PW-1,  has  lodged  an  Ejahar  with  

Raninagar Police Station on 6.12.1999 giving full details of the  

commission of the offence and naming his father as the person  

who committed the offence. The said Ejahar had been written  

by Saidul Islam, PW-10.  On scrutiny of evidence of PW-10, it  

becomes evident that he is an independent witness residing in  

another village and could not have any grudge to support the  

7

case of  the prosecution by deposing falsely.  The conduct of  

Sujit  Mondal,  PW-1,  remains  very  natural,  probable  and  

convincing.   During  cross-examination,  nothing  could  be  

elicited from him seeking the credence of his statement.  No  

reason came forward in the cross-examination or otherwise as  

to  why a son would depose against  his  father.  There is  no  

suggestion by Sujit Mondal, PW-1, that he was not sure as to  

who has  committed the offence, as in cross-examination he  

denied such a suggestion stating that it was not a fact that he  

told the name of the assailant as his father by suspicion.  The  

other witnesses who were close relatives and neighbours of the  

appellant  have  supported  the  prosecution  case.   Sambhu  

Nath, PW-2, had deposed that he reached at about mid-night  

when Sujit Mondal, PW-1, shouted and he came out from his  

house and on enquiry from PW-1, he learnt that his mother  

and brother had been murdered by the appellant with a sharp  

cutting knife. PW-1 was also injured on his head and hands.  

Swapan Kumar, PW-3, deposed that on reaching the place of  

occurrence, he interrogated Sujit Mondal, who told him that  

his father had killed his mother, Usha Rani and brother, Ajit  

8

Mondal and there had been an attempt by his father to kill  

him  (Sujit  Mondal)  also  with  a  sharp  cutting  knife.   Dilip  

Kumar,  PW-4, Binay Mondal,  PW-6, Anukul Chandra, PW-7  

and  Prasanna   Kumar,  PW-8,  also  deposed  to   the   same  

effect.  All these witnesses had been cross-examined but there  

is nothing on record to show that any part of their depositions  

could be doubted. We do not find any force in the submissions  

made  by  Shri  Seeraj  Bagga  that  there  were  material  

contradictions in their depositions as learned counsel for the  

appellant  had  pointed  out  that  Dilip  Kumar,  PW-4,  had  

deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence, Ajit  

Mondal  was  alive  and  he  interrogated  him  as  to  who  had  

caused the injury and he told him that his father assaulted  

him and left. He further deposed that Sujit Mondal told him  

that  Ajit  Mondal  and Usha Rani  were also  attacked  by the  

appellant and Ajit Mondal died within a short time and Usha  

Rani had died before his arrival.  

12. The submissions made by Shri Seeraj Bagga is that none  

of  the other witnesses had deposed that when any of  them  

reached the place of occurrence, Ajit Mondal was alive. In fact,  

9

there is nothing on record to show as who was the person who  

reached first at the place of occurrence. It cannot be presumed  

that all of them reached the place of occurrence at the same  

time/simultaneously. No other question had been put to Dilip  

Kumar, PW-4, in his cross-examination.  Therefore, it is quite  

possible that he was the first  man to arrive at the place of  

occurrence and the statement made by him cannot be denied.  

13. Bipin  Mukherjee,  PW-9,  had  been  the  Investigating  

Officer at a later stage when the first Investigating Officer had  

been transferred and he had deposed that he had submitted  

the charge sheet against the accused under Sections 302/324  

IPC on 13.4.2000 showing  the  appellant  as  absconder.  The  

appellant  was  given  opportunity  to  cross-examine  the  said  

I.O.; but the opportunity was not availed. In fact, he was the  

best  person  to  explain  as  to  why  there  could  not  be  any  

recovery of the knife, the weapon used in the crime.  

14. Saidul Islam, PW-10, an independent witness belonging  

to another village  has successfully proved the Ejahar written  

by  him  at  Raninagar  Public  Health  Centre.   The  ocular  

evidence given by Sujit Mondal, PW-1, is duly supported by  

10

the  post  mortem  report  and  by  Dr.  Tarun  Kumar,  PW-5,  

examined by the prosecution, who had explained that several  

stab injuries had been caused in the chest, neck and heart of  

Usha Rani  Mondal.  He  proved  the  post  mortem report  and  

opined that  the cardio  respiratory failure  due to  shock and  

haemorrhage due to injuries, had been the cause of death. He  

also  opined  that  injuries  were  caused  by  sharp  cutting  

weapon.  Same remains the situation so far as the injuries on  

the body of Ajit Mondal are concerned.     

15. For  every  question put  to  the  appellant  under  Section  

313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,  the same  reply was  

given that he was innocent and he submitted that he would  

not adduce any evidence in his defence.

16. In view of the above, we reach the inescapable conclusion  

that there is nothing on record to show that there could be any  

reason for Sujit Mondal, PW-1, a son, to falsely implicate and  

rope  his  father  into  such  a  gruesome  murder  or  the  other  

witnesses, who had been so close relatives and neighbours of  

the appellant, would support the prosecution case.  

11

17. During  the  cross-examination  of  all  of  the  witnesses,  

nothing  had  transpired  for  which  their  evidence  may  be  

discarded. The witnesses were natural and most probable and  

their presence at the place of occurrence immediately after the  

commission  of  crime  is  expected,  being  close  relatives  and  

neighbours.  No reason could be given as to why such close  

relations  of  the  appellant  would  depose  against  him.  

Undoubtedly,  there  is  nothing  on  record  to  show  as  what  

could be the motive behind the murder of his wife and son by  

the appellant.  However, it can be difficult to understand the  

motive behind the offence. The issue of motive becomes totally  

irrelevant  when  there  is  direct  evidence  of  a  trustworthy  

witness  regarding  the  commission  of  the  crime.  In  such  a  

case, particularly when a son and other closely related persons  

depose  against  the  appellant,  the  proof  of  motive  by  direct  

evidence loses its  relevance.  In the instant case,  the  ocular  

evidence  is  supported  by  the  medical  evidence.  There  is  

nothing on record to show that the appellant had received any  

grave  or  sudden  provocation  from  the  victims  or  that  the  

12

appellant had lost his power of self control from any action of  

either of the victims.  

Motive :

18. In fact, motive is a thing which is primarily known to the  

accused himself and it may not be possible for the prosecution  

to explain what actually prompted or excited him to commit a  

particular  crime.   In  Shivji  Genu  Mohite  Vs.  State  of  

Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 55, this Court held that in case  

the prosecution is not able to discover an impelling motive,  

that could not reflect upon the credibility of a witness proved  

to be a reliable eye-witness. Evidence as to motive would, no  

doubt,  go  a  long  way  in  cases  wholly  dependent  on  

circumstantial evidence. Such evidence would form one of the  

links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in such a case.  

But  that  would  not  be  so  in  cases  where  there  are  eye-

witnesses of credibility, though even in such cases if a motive  

is  properly  proved,  such  proof  would  strengthen  the  

prosecution  case  and  fortify  the  court  in  its  ultimate  

conclusion.  But  that  does  not  mean  that  if  motive  is  not  

13

established,  the  evidence  of  an  eye-witness  is  rendered  

untrustworthy.  

19. It is settled legal proposition that even if the absence of  

motive as alleged is accepted that is of no consequence and  

pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the  

crime.  Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence  

of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part  

loses its significance.  Therefore, if the genesis of the motive of  

the  occurrence  is  not  proved,  the  ocular  testimony  of  the  

witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only by  

the reason of the absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence  

is worthy of reliance. (Vide  Hari Shankar Vs. State of U.P.,  

(1996) 9 SCC 40;  Bikau Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar,  

(2003)  12  SCC 616;  and  Abu Thakir  & Ors.  Vs.  State  of  

Tamil Nadu, (2010) 5 SCC 91).  

20.   In a case relating to circumstantial evidence, motive does  

assume  great  importance,  but  to  say  that  the  absence  of  

motive  would dislodge the entire  prosecution story  is  giving  

this one factor an importance which is not due. Motive is in  

the mind of the accused and can seldom be fathomed with any  

14

degree of accuracy.  (Vide Ujagar Singh Vs. State of Punjab,  

(2007) 13 SCC 90).  

21. While dealing with a similar issue, this Court in State of  

U.P. Vs. Kishanpal & Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 73 held as under:

“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.”

Abscondance by Accused :

22. In Matru @ Girish Chandra Vs. The State of U.P., AIR  

1971 SC 1050, this Court repelled the submissions made by  

the State that as after commission of the offence the accused  

15

had been absconding, therefore, the inference can be drawn  

that he was a guilty person observing as under:  

“The appellant’s conduct in absconding was also  relied  upon.  Now,  mere  absconding by  itself  does  not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of guilty  mind. Even an innocent man may feel panicky and  try  to  evade  arrest  when  wrongly  suspected  of  a  grave crime such is the instinct of self-preservation.  The act of absconding is no doubt relevant piece of  evidence to be considered along with other evidence  but  its  value  would  always  depend  on  the  circumstances of each case. Normally the courts are  disinclined to attach much importance to the act of  absconding, treating it as a very small item in the  evidence for  sustaining conviction.  It  can scarcely  be  held  as  a  determining  link  in  completing  the  chain of circumstantial evidence which must admit  of no other reasonable hypothesis than that of the  guilt  of  the  accused.  In  the  present  case  the  appellant was with Ram Chandra till  the FIR was  lodged.  If  thereafter  he  felt  that  he  was  being  wrongly suspected and he tried to keep out of the  way  we  do  not  think  this  circumstance  can  be  considered  to  be  necessarily  evidence  of  a  guilty  mind  attempting  to  evade  justice.  It  is  not  inconsistent with his innocence.”

A  similar  view  has  been  reiterated  by  this  Court  in  

Rahman Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1972 SC 110; and  State of  

M.P. Vs. Paltan Mallah & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 733.    

16

Abscondance by a person against  whom FIR has been  

lodged, having an apprehension of being apprehended by the  

police, cannot be said to be unnatural.  

Thus, in view of the above, we do not find any force in the  

submission made by Shri Bhattacharjee that mere absconding  

by the appellant after commission of the crime and remaining  

untraceable for such a long time itself can establish his guilt.  

Absconding by itself is not conclusive either of guilt or of guilty  

conscience.    

23. The  defence  did  not  even  make  a  suggestion  to  Sujit  

Mondal, PW-1,  that he was not injured by the appellant with  

a knife. The evidence of PW-1, therefore, cannot be ignored.  

However, as the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to  

the effect that Sujit Mondal, PW-1, remained admitted in PHC  

Raninagar. That part of the evidence has been ignored by the  

Trial Court as well as by the High Court.  

Testimony of Sole Witness :  

24. Shri  Bagga  has  also  submitted  that  there  was  sole  

testimony of Sujit Mondal, PW-1, and the rest, i.e. depositions  

17

of PW-2 to PW-8, could be treated merely as a hearsay. The  

same cannot be relied upon for conviction.    

25. In  Sunil  Kumar  Vs.  State  Govt.  of  NCT  of  Delhi,  

(2003) 11 SCC 367,  this Court repelled a similar submission  

observing that as a general rule the Court can and may act on  

the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable.  

There is  no legal  impediment in convicting a person on the  

sole testimony of a single witness.  That is the logic of Section  

134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about  

the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. In fact, it  

is  not  the  number,  the  quantity,  but  the  quality  that  is  

material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to  

be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence  

has  a  ring  of  truth,  is  cogent,  credible  and  trustworthy  or  

otherwise.   

26. In  Namdeo Vs.  State of Maharashtra,  (2007)  14 SCC  

150, this Court re-iterated the similar view observing that it is  

the  quality  and  not  the  quantity  of  evidence  which  is  

necessary for proving or disproving a fact.  The legal system  

has laid  emphasis on value,  weight  and quality  of  evidence  

18

rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses.  

It  is,  therefore,  open  to  a  competent  court  to  fully  and  

completely  rely  on a solitary  witness and record conviction.  

Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of  

several  witnesses  if  it  is  not  satisfied  about  the  quality  of  

evidence.  

27. In Kunju @ Balachandran Vs. State of Taml Nadu, AIR  

2008  SC 1381,  a  similar  view  has  been re-iterated  placing  

reliance on various earlier judgments of this court including  

Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1251; and  

Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614.  

28. Thus, in view of the above, the bald contention made by  

Shri  Bagga that no conviction can be recorded in case of a  

solitary eye-witness has no force and is negatived accordingly.

29. In view of the above,  we are of the considered opinion  

that the facts and circumstances of the case do not present  

special  features  warranting  the  review  of  the  

judgments/orders of the courts below.  Appeal lacks merit and  

is accordingly dismissed.   

19

30. Before parting with the case, we record our appreciation,  

thanks and gratitude to Shri  Seeraj  Bagga in rendering full  

assistance to the Court during the course of hearing.  

  …………………………………J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

…………………………………J.  (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi,  July 26, 2010

20