Motive Loses Significance When Crime Proved By Ocular Evidence: Allahabad High Court Upholds Conviction In 2015 Murder Case

A bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad thus upheld the conviction and life sentence awarded to appellant-Hareram Chaudhary for the cold-blooded midnight assassination of a prominent ashram head in Barabanki in the year 2015.

As per the prosecution's case, the incident occurred in the intervening night of May 15 and 16, 2015, at the Purshottam Dham Ashram. Deceased-Thakur Ram Sahai Singh, the Head Secretary of the Thakur Sadanand Tatvagyan Parishad, was sleeping out in the open on a threshing ground (khaliyan).

At about 02:00 AM, the appellant shot him in the head. As per the testimony of the eyewitnesses who were present just a few steps away, the accomplices including Pratap Chandra, Anand Bhatt, Durgesh Pandey and Premdas, stood by exhorting the appellant in the darkness, shouting, 'मारो बचने न पाये' (hit, do not spare him).

In March 2018, the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Court No.36, Barabanki, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Challenging his conviction, the appellant moved the High Court, wherein his counsel pointed out an inordinate and unexplained delay of 11 hours in lodging the FIR.

It was further highlighted that the investigating officer had dropped the names of 6 other co-accused during the probe, that there was no motive to commit such a heinous offence and that the prosecution also miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the appellant.

The state, on the other hand, opposed the appeal, defending the trial court's judgment.

Addressing the delay aspect, the division bench noted that the sudden killing of the head of the institution had led to an atmosphere of fear, panic and confusion in the ashram. It also noted that the Assailants had even threatened dire consequences if anyone came out to report the incident. 

In view of this, the bench opined that it was not unnatural that the FIR was lodged the next morning, after a delay of around 11 hours.

The Court added that in case the delay in lodging the FIR is explained sufficiently and evidence on record is not much against the version of the FIR, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on this ground alone

Regarding the argument over the absence of motive in the present case, the bench noted that while it plays an important role in committing the crime, it loses its significance in the case of ocular evidence.

"The motive remains locked in the mind of an accused, therefore, it is very difficult in each and every case to prove it by any cogent evidence. It can be deduced by the evidence, material on record and the conduct of the parties", the bench observed.

In this regard, the Court referred to the Judgment of the Apex Court in Subhash Aggarwal v The State of NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 443, wherein it was held the absence of motive will not be fatal to the prosecution's case if there exists strong circumstantial evidence proving the guilt of the accused beyond a cavil of doubt.

In the present case, while the prosecution highlighted evidence suggesting that the accused harboured hostility towards the deceased due to his expulsion from the ashram premises, the High Court concluded that a strong motive does not by itself result in a conviction, and the absence of one cannot result in an acquittal.

The bench also referred to the fact that the appellant had admitted enmity with the deceased in his Section 313 CrPC statement, and hence, observed that the motive to commit the crime could not be disputed.

Crucially, the Court also found the police recovery of the 315-bore country-made pistol used in the crime to be valid, noting that it was lawfully recovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act based distinctly on the appellant's disclosure statement.

Furthermore, referring to the credible testimonies of the eyewitnesses (PW1 and PW2), the bench remarked thus:

"…even if the motive is not proved or there is any doubt about the motive and the occurrence is proved by ocular evidence, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on this ground."

Finding credibility in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, the bench made the following observation:

"Their testimonies are consistent, cogent, and mutually corroborative on all material particulars, including the time and place of occurrence, the manner of assault, the source of light at the spot, and the identity of the accused. Nothing substantial has been brought out in their cross-examination, so as to render their presence doubtful or to discredit their otherwise trustworthy version".

Against this backdrop, the bench concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court's judgment did not suffer from any error, illegality, or perversity.

Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court were confirmed, the sentence was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.