Case: Praful Sudhakar Parab Vs. State of Maharashtra

conduct of the accused which has come before the Court by evidence, recovery of clothes which was worn by him at the time of occurrence and recovery of keys which were with the deceased when he left the house completes the chain of events and unerringly points out that it was the accused who committed the crime. 16. One of the submissions which has been raised by the learned amicus curiae is that the prosecution failed to prove any motive. It is contended that the evidence which was led including the recovery of bunch of keys from guardroom was with a view to point out that he wanted to commit theft of the cash laying in the office but no evidence was led by the prosecution to prove that how much cash were there in the pay office. Motive for committing a crime is something which is hidden in the mind of accused and it has been held by this Court that it is an impossible task for the prosecution to prove what precisely have impelled the murderer to kill a particular person. This Court in Ravinder Kumar and another v. State Of Punjab, 2001 (7) SCC 690 , has laid down following in paragraph 18: "18........It is generally an impossible task for the prosecution to prove what precisely would have impelled the murderers to kill a particular person. All that prosecution in many cases could point to is the possible mental element which could have been the cause for the murder. In this connection we deem it useful to refer to the observations of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh {1999 (4) SCC 370 :"No doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if the prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended." 17. Further in Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2010 (10) SCC 439 , this Court held that if motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. Following was stated in paragraph 54: "So far as the issue of motive is concerned, the case is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in Suresh Chandra Bahri (supra). Therefore, it does not require any further elaborate discussion. More so, if motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. (Vide: State of Gujarat v. Anirudhsing [supra])" 18. The High Court while considering the motive has made following observations at page 46: "Although prosecution is not very certain about the motive, upon taking into consideration the evidence of PW-4 and PW-6, a faint probability is created, regarding intentions of the accused to lay hands on the cash which could have been in possession of the victim, as against the initial story that the accused was enraged against the victim, because the victim used to tease him on the point of his marriage with a bar girl Helen Fernandes. Motive is a mental state, which is always locked in the inner compartment of the brain of the accused and inability of the prosecution to establish the motive need not necessarily cause entire failure of prosecution." We fully endorse the above view taken by the High Court and do not find any substance in the above ground.19. The amicus curiae submits that the Patil Sahib was not examined as witness. The prosecution case was that accused told the victim that he has been called by Patil Sahib in the office. When the evidence has come on the record including the evidence of PW-1 Pradeep Mohit, who was the Telephone Operator in the PTS, Marol in the night of 7.12.1996 that there was no message for victim, non production of Patil by prosecution is of no consequence.20. The next submission of amicus curiae is that the PW-8 Kalpana Raut has stated in her statement that on 7.12.1996 victim left the house after 9:00 p.m. after taking dinner but no food was found in the stomach and the medical report bellies that case. The High Court has dealt with the above submissions and made following observations at page 33: "Evidence of Kalpana, duly supported by PW-15 Shantaram is strong enough to draw conclusion that Kalpana was certainly aware of her husband having departed with nephew of PW-15 Shantaram, irrespective of the fact whether she had seen that nephew or not and also irrespective of the fact, whether the victim departed without dinner. The portion from post mortem notes, indicating the victim to be empty stomach, therefore, is not weighty enough to demolish Kalpanas deposition, which claims knowledge of departure of victim with the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold tht Kalpanas evidence that the deceased had departed with the accused, is acceptable and the prosecution has established this circumstance with reliable evidence." 21. We endorse the above findings of the High Court. The present is not a case of solitary evidence of last seen together but sufficient evidence was led to complete the chain of events and link the accused to the crime. The High Court after elaborately considering all the evidence on record has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the accused.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The present is not a case of solitary evidence of last seen together but sufficient evidence was led to complete the chain of events and link the accused to the crime. The High Court after elaborately considering all the evidence on record has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the accused.